STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS INC. VS.

CIR
GR NO. L-19273-74
FEBRUARY 29, 1964

FACTS:
The Court of Industrial Relations charged Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. and the National Labor Union with
unfair labor practice for attempting to persuade members of the Tagkawayan Labor Union to join the
National Labor Union, threatening them with discharge, discharging many members for affiliation,
and refusing to bargain with the union on wages, transportation facilities, and hours of work. The
company denied these charges and claimed to have entered into a bargaining agreement with the
National Labor Union. The court found that the company entered into an agreement with the
National Labor Union to silence the demands of the union members and dismissed the claim that the
complainants left their jobs. The court also ordered the reinstatement of 113 employees with back
wages. The company appealed the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial, arguing
that there was no investigation conducted by the prosecutor before the charges were filed.
The court found no error in its ruling that the company committed an unfair labor practice due to the
National Labor Union's non-certification by the Court of Industrial Relations. The claim that the union
was designated by the majority of members is unfounded, as the Tagkawayan Labor Union was not
consulted before the closed-shop agreement was entered into. The court also found the closed-shop
agreement valid, as it compels all laborers, especially the Tagkawayan Labor Union members, to join
the National Labor Union. The court also found the strike valid, even if forced to join the rival National
Labor Union. The court also criticized the court for not granting a new trial, as the sawmills closed in
1954 and did not reopen until 1957. The court should have reversed its decision regarding the period
of time for back wages, as it could not order payment up to the decision en banc on May 24, 1961.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sawmills failed to comply with the requirements of CBA under collective bargaining?

RULING:
Yes. Therefore, a ruling is laid down that allowing dismissed laborers to earn back wages for an
indefinite period is unjust and fosters indolence. Laborers should find employment immediately,
especially when employment depends on litigation, and minimize the employer's loss by finding
alternative work. A three-month period should be sufficient for a laborer to find another job. The back
wages awarded to respondents laborers should be limited to three months, not an indefinite one. The
court's decision to reinstate 288 strikers with back wages is questioned, as it does not appear that the
strikers were actually employed at the time of the strike. The court did not find that the strikers were
actually dismissed, and those who were dismissed should be included in the 113 who were entitled to
pay for three months from their dismissal. The judgment is affirmed with back wages only for three
months.

EASTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., petitioner,

vs. HONORABLE CARMELO C. NORIEL and PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNIONS-PSSLU Fed.—
(TUCP) (PSSLU Eastland LOCAL), respondents.
G.R. No. L-45528 February 10, 1982
FACTS:

The Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations ruled that even if less
than 30% of employees ask for a certification election, the respondent Director can order it, provided
there is no abuse of discretion. The decision was intended to determine the exclusive collective
bargaining representative among several unions within a bargaining unit. The decision included not
only the petitioner but also the Philippine Federation of Labor, the National Labor Union, and the
National Federation of Labor Unions.

The question of whether respondent Noriel's reliance on Article 257's requirement of 30% of all
employees suffices remains. The law clearly states that all employees can participate in a certification
election, and the later article is irrelevant. The Court has consistently ruled that for the integrity of the
collective bargaining process and adherence to industrial democracy, all workers of a collective
bargaining unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification election. The recent
decision, United Lumber and General Workers v. Noriel, supports this principle, stating that the
success of this petition would be an unwarranted departure from this principle. The Court has
consistently followed this ruling under the Industrial Peace Act, stating that the significance of a
petition for certification is that employees have the opportunity to make known who has the right to
represent them.

The petition filed by Consolidated Farms, Inc., II, a party with minimal interest in certificate petition
elections, was deemed an intruder on the choice of a collective bargaining representative. The court
should not support such an attempt at interfering with a purely internal affair of labor. The court
should be the last agency to lend support to such an attempt at interfering with a purely internal
affair of labor. The court should maintain a strictly hands-off policy to avoid allowing the employer to
interfere in the process leading to the free and untrammeled choice of the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers. The court should be the last agency to look with tolerance at such
efforts of an employer to take part in the process leading to the free and untrammeled choice of the
exclusive bargaining representative of the workers. Counsel for management should be well-advised
to accord the utmost scrutiny to any claim that there would be a violation of the rights of their client
if a certification election were conducted.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT employees who were employed for a period for less than one year are entitled to
vote in the certification election

RULING:
ES.

The one-year period required for purposes of membership in the labor union is another thing,
different from the question of entitlement to participate in a certification election.
It has been settled by the Court that for the integrity of the collective bargaining process to be
maintained and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of industrial democracy,all the
workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given the opportunity to participate in a certification
election. This Court has resolutely set its face against any attempt that may frustrate the above
statutory policy. Thus, all employees can participate. It is equally important that not only some of the
employees but all of them should have the right to make known who shall have the right to represent
them.