CBA; REFUSAL TO RENEGOTIATE ECONOMIC PROVISIONS OF THE CBA BY THE MANAGEMENT CONSTITUTES ULP GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 146728. Feb!"# 11$ 2%%4 F"&'() Ge*e"+ M,++,*- Coo"',o* e/+o#e0 1% o3e(. A++ 'e e/+o#ee( ee /e/be( o5 " !*,o* ,& ,( " 0!+# &e',5,e0 b"-",*,*- "-e*'. Te GMC "*0 "*0 'e !*,o* e*'ee0 ,*'o " &o++e&',e b"-",*,*b"-",*,*- "-ee/e*' ,& ,*&+!0e0 'e ,((!e o5 ee(e*'"',o* ee(e*'"',o* '"' ,( e55e&',e 5o " 'e/ o5 'ee #e"( ,& ,++ e,e o* Noe/be %$ 11. O* Noe/be 2$ 11$ " 0"# be5oe 'e e,"',o* o5 'e CBA$ 'e !*,o* (e*' GMC " oo(e0 CBA$ ,' " e9!e(' '"' " &o!*'e oo("+ be (!b/,''e0 ,',* 'e* 0"#(. o* O&'obe 11$ GMC e&e,e0 &o++e&',e "*0 ,*0,,0!"+ +e''e( 5o/ 'e !*,o* /e/be( ('"',*- '"' 'e# "e ,'0"* 5o/ 'e, !*,o* /e/be(,. O* :e&e/be 1$ 11$ 'e !*,o* 0 ,(&+",/e0 "*# /"((,e 0,("55,+,"',o* 0,("55,+,"',o* o5 ,'( !*,o* /e/be(. O* "*!"# 1$ 12$ GMC 0,(/,((e0 "* e/+o#ee o ,( " !*,o* /e/be. Te !*,o* o'e&'e0 'e e/+o#ee "*0 e9!e('e0 GMC 'o (!b/,' 'o 'e -,e"*&e o&e0!e o,0e0 b# 'e CBA$ b!' GMC "-!e0 '"' 'ee "( *o b"(,( 'o *e-o',"'e ,' " !*,o* ,& ,( *o +o*-e e,(',*-. Te !*,o* 'e* 5,+e0 " &"(e ,' 'e L"bo Ab,'e b!' 'e +"''e !+e0 '"' 'ee /!(' 5,(' be " &e',5,&"',o* e+e&',o* 'o 0e'e/,*e ,5 'e !*,o* (',++ e*o 5o ,*'e5e,*- ,' 'e ,-' o5 ,'( e/+o#ee( 'o (e+5?o-"*,@"',o*. He+0) GMC ,( -!,+'# o5 !*5", +"bo "&',&e e* ,' e5!(e0 'o *e-o',"'e ,' 'e !*,o* !o* ,'( e9!e(' 5o 'e e*e-o',"',o* o5 'e e&o*o/,& 'e/( o5 'e CBA o* Noe/be 2$ 11. 'e !*,o*( oo("+ "( (!b/,''e0 ,',* 'e e(&,be0 ?#e" e,o0 5o/ 'e 0"'e o5 e55e&',,'# o5 'e CBA. I' "( ob,o!( '"' GMC "0 *o "+,0 e"(o* 'o e5!(e 'o *e -o',"'e ,* -oo0 5",' ,' 'e !*,o*. Te e5!("+ 'o (e*0 &o!*'e oo("+ 'o 'e !*,o* "*0 'o b"-",* "*e o* 'e e&o*o/,& 'e/( o5 'e CBA ,( '"*'"/o!*' 'o "* !*5", +"bo "&',&e !*0e A',&+e 248 o5 'e L"bo Co0e. U*0e A',&+e 22 o5 'e L"bo Co0e$ bo' "',e( "e e9!,e0 'o e5o/ 'e, /!'!"+ ob+,-"',o* 'o /ee' "*0 &o*e*e o/'+# "*0 ee0,',o!(+# ,* -oo0 5",' 5o 'e !o(e o5 *e-o',"',*- "* "-ee/e*'. Te !*,o* +,e0 ! 'o ',( ob+,-"',o* e* ,' e(e*'e0 oo("+( 5o " *e CBA 'o GMC ,',* #e"( 5o/ 'e e 55e&',,'# o5 'e o,-,*"+ CBA. B!' GMC 5",+e0 ,* ,'( 0!'# !*0e A',&+e 22. ="' ,' 0,0 "( 'o 0e,(e 0e,(e " 5+,/(# e&!(e$ b# 9!e(',o*,*9!e(',o*,*- 'e e,('e*&e o5 'e !*,o* "*0 'e ('"'!( ('"'!( o5 ,'( /e/be(, 'o ee*' ee*' "*# *e-o',"',o*. I' be"( ('e((,*- '"' 'e o&e0!e ,* &o++e&',e b"-",*,*- e(&,be0 b# 'e Co0e ,( /"*0"'o# be&"!(e o5 'e b"(,& ,*'ee(' o5 'e ('"'e ,* e*(!,*- +"(',*- ,*0!(',"+ e"&e. Te Co!' o5 Ae"+( 5o!*0 '"' 'e +e''e( be'ee* Feb!"# 'o !*e$ 1 b# 1 !*,o* /e/be( (,-*,5#,*- 'e, e(,-*"',o* 5o/ 'e !*,o* &+e"+# ,*0,&"'e0 '"' GMC ee'e0 e((!e o* 'e e/+o#ee(. =e "-ee ,' 'e Co!' o5 Ae"+( &o*&+!(,o* '"' 'e ,++? ',/e0 +e''e( o5 e(,-*"',o* 5o/ 'e !*,o* /e/be( ,*0,&"'e '"' GMC ,*'e5ee0 ,' 'e ,-' o5 ,'( e/+o#ee 'o (e+5?o-"*,@"',o*.
G.R. No. L-54334 January 22, 1986 KIOK LOY, doing buin! und!r "#! na$! and "y%! &'()(N I*( *R(+ L+N, petitioner, vs. N+ION+L L+/OR R(L+ION& *OI&&ION 0NLR* and +/+N&+NG KIL&+N NG +GG+'+ 0KIL&+N, respondents. Petition for certiorari to annul the decision 1 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated July 2, !"#" $hich found petitioner %$eden &ce Cream 'uilty of unfair labor practice for unustified refusal to bar'ain, in violation of par. (') of rticle rticle 2*" 2 of the Ne$ Labor Code, 3 and declared the draft proposal of the +nion for a collective bar'ainin' a'reement as the 'overnin' collective bar'ainin' a'reement bet$een the employees and the mana'ement. he pertinent bac-'round facts are as follo$s &n a certification election held on /ctober 0, !"#1, the Pambansan' ilusan' Pa''a$a (+nion for short), a le'itimate late labor federation, $on and $as subse3uently certified in a resolution dated November 2", !"#1 by the 4ureau of Labor Relations as the sole and e5clusive bar'ainin' a'ent of the ran-6and6file employees of %$eden &ce Cream Plant (Company for short). he Company7s motion for reconsideration of the said resolution $as denied on January 28, !"#1. hereafter, and more specifically on 9ecember #, !"#1, the +nion furnished 4 the Company $ith t$o copies of its proposed collective bar'ainin' a'reement. t t the same time, it re3uested the Company for its counter proposals. :licitin' no response to the aforesaid re3uest, the +nion a'ain $rote the Company reiteratin' its re3uest for collective bar'ainin' ne'otiations and for the Company to furnish them $ith its counter proposals. 4oth re3uests $ere i'nored and remained unacted upon by the Company.
Left $ith no other alternative in i ts attempt to brin' the Company to the bar'ainin' table, the +nion, on ;ebruary !*, !"#", filed a , !"##, and !"#1. he case $as further reset to =ay !!, !"#" due to the $ithdra$al of the Company7s counsel of record, tty. Rodolfo dela Cru?. /n =ay 2*, !"#1, tty. ;ortunato Pan'aniban formally entered his appearance as counsel for the Company only to re3uest for another postponement alle'edly for the purpose of ac3uaintin' himself $ith the case. =ean$hile, the Company submitted its position paper on =ay 21, !"#". @hen the case $as called for hearin' on June *, !"#" as scheduled, the Company7s representative, =r. Chin', $ho $as supposed to be e5amined, failed to appear. tty. Pan'aniban then re3uested for another postponement $hich the labor arbiter denied. Ae also ruled that the Company has $aived its ri'ht to present further evidence and, therefore, considered the case submitted for resolution. /n July !1, !"#", labor arbiter ndres ;idelino submitted its report to the National Labor Relations Commission. /n July 2, !"#", the National Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of $hich reads as follo$s @A:R:;/R:, the respondent %$eden &ce Cream is hereby declared 'uilty of unustified refusal to bar'ain, in violation of %ection (') rticle 2*1 (no$ rticle 2*"), of P.9. **2, as amended. ;urther, the draft proposal for a collective bar'ainin' a'reement (:5h. <: <) hereto attached and made an inte'ral part of this decision, sent by the +nion (Private respondent) to the respondent (petitioner herein) and $hich is hereby found to be reasonable under the premises, is hereby declared to be the collective a'reement $hich should 'overn the relationship bet$een the parties herein. %/ /R9:R:9. (:mphasis supplied) Petitioner no$ comes before +s assailin' the aforesaid decision contendin' that the National Labor Relations Commission acted $ithout or in e5cess of its urisdiction or $ith 'rave abuse of discretion amountin' to lac- of urisdiction in renderin' the challen'ed decision. /n u'ust *, !"1, this Court dismissed the petition for lac- of merit. +pon motion of the petitioner, ho$ever, the Resolution of dismissal $as reconsidered and the petition $as 'iven due course in a Resolution dated pril !, !"1!. Aeld Collective bar'ainin'is a mutual responsibility and le'al obli'ation of the employer and the +nion. +nder rticle 2*", par.(') of the Labor Code, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse
Neither party is compelled to accept or a'ree to the proposals of the other. 4ut an errin' party cannot be allo$ed the impunity fei'n ne'otiations by 'oin' throu'h empty 'estures. he case $as certififed to the NLRC after conciliation efforts failed. his Court must accord deference to its findin's of reasonableness of any Collective 4ar'ainin' 'reement by the employees and mana'ement .
G.R. No. 5321 Jun! 2, 1988 +&&O*I+() R+)( NION& 0+, petitioner, vs. ON. *R(&(N*IO /. R+J+NO, in #i a7ai"y a )ir!"or o "#! /ur!au o Labor R!%a"ion, OL(, /+LI'+G R+N&I, IN*. and R+)( NION& O ( ILIIN(& +N) +LLI() &(R:I*(& 0+&-', respondents. a"; his case arose $hen on =arch 28, !"1>, the private respondent union (+P%) filed $ith the =alolos labor office of the =/L: a petition for certification election at the 4ali$a' ransit, &nc. amon' its ran-6and6file $or-ers. ! 9espite opposition from the herein petitioner, ssociated rade +nions (+), the petition $as 'ranted by the med6arbiter on =ay !*, !"1>, and a certification election $as ordered , $hich he affirmed in his order of July !#, !"1>, denyin' the motion for reconsideration. 0 + then came to this Court claimin' that the said orders a re tainted $ith 'rave abuse of discretion and so should be reversed. /n u'ust 2, !"1>, $e issued a temporary restrainin' order that has maintained the status quo amon' the parties. * &n support of its petition, + claims that the private respondent7s petition for certification election is defective because (!) at the time it $as filed, it did not contain the si'natures of 0D of the $or-ers, to si'nify their consent to the certification electionB and (2) it $as not allo$ed under the contract6bar rule because a ne$ collective bar'ainin' a'reement had been entered into by + $ith the company on pril !, !"1>. 8 +P% for its part, supported by the %olicitor Eeneral, contends that the 0D consent re3uirement has been substantially complied $ith, the $or-ers7 si'natures havin' been subse3uently submitted and admitted. s for the contract6bar rule, its position is that the collective bar'ainin' a'reement, besides bein' vitiated by certain procedural defects, $as concluded by + $ith the mana'ement only on pril !, !"1> after the filin' of the petition for certification election on =arch 28, !"1>. > his initial sparrin' $as follo$ed by a spirited e5chan'e of vie$s amon' the parties $hich insofar as the first issue is concerned has become at best only academic no$. he reason is that the 0D consent re3uired u nder then %ection 281 of the Labor Code is no l on'er in force o$in' to the amendment of this section by :5ecutive /rder No. !!!, $hich became effective on =arch *, !"1#. s revised by the said e5ecutive order, the pertinent articles of the Labor Code no$ read as follo$s rt. 28>. Representation issue in organized establishments.— &n or'ani?ed establishments, $hen a petition 3uestionin' the maority status of the incumbent bar'ainin' a'ent is filed before the =inistry $ithin the si5ty6day period before the e5piration of the collective bar'ainin' a'reement, the =ed6rbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot to ascertain the $ill of the employees in the appropriate bar'ainin' unit. o have a valid election, at least a maority of all eli'ible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. he labor union receivin' the maority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the e5clusive bar'ainin' a'ent of all the $or-ers in the unit. @hen an election $hich provides for three or more choices results in no choice receivin' a maority of the valid votes cast, a runoff election shall be conducted bet$een the choices receivin' the t$o hi'hest number of votes. rt. 28#. Petitions in unorganized establishments.F &n any establishment $here there is no certified bar'ainin' a'ent, the petition for certification election filed by a le'itimate labor or'ani?ation shall be supported by the $ritten consent of at least t$enty (2D) percent of all the employees in the bar'ainin' unit. +pon receipt and verification of such petition, the =ed6rbiter shall automatically order the conduct of a certification election. he applicable provision in the case at bar is rticle 28> because 4ali$a' transit, &nc. is an or'ani?ed establishment. +nder this provision, the petition for certification election need no lon'er carry the si'natures of the 0D of the $or-ers consentin' to such petition as ori'inally re3uired under rticle 281. he present rule provides that as lon' as the petition contains the matters # re3uired in %ection 2, Rule 8, 4oo- G of the &mplementin' Rules and Re'ulations, as amended by %ection >, &mplementin' Rules of :./. No. !!!, the med6arbiter
+ insists that its collective bar'ainin' a'reement concluded by it $ith 4ali$a' ransit, &nc, on pril !, !"1>, should bar the certification election sou'ht by +P% as this $ould disturb the said ne$ a'reement. =oreover, the a'reement had been ratified on pril 0, !"1>, by a maority of the $or-ers and is plainly beneficial to them because of the many 'enerous concessions made by the mana'ement. 1 4esides pointin' out that its petition for certification election $as filed $ithin the freedom period and five days before the ne$ collective bar'ainin' a'reement $as concluded by + $ith 4ali$a' ransit, &nc. +P% contends that the said a'reement suffers from certain fatal procedural fla$s. %pecifically, the C4 $as not posted for at least five days in t$o conspicuous places in the establishment before ratification, to enable the $or-ers to clearly inform themselves of its provisions. =oreover, the C4 submitted to the =/L: did not carry the s$orn statement of the union secretary, attested by the union president, that the C4 had been duly posted and ratified, as re3uired by %ection !, Rule ", 4oo- G of the &mplementin' Rules and Re'ulations. hese re3uirements bein' mandatory, non6compliance there$ith rendered the said C4 ineffective. " he Court $ill not rule on the merits andHor defects of the ne$ C4 and shall only consider the fact that it $as entered into at a time $hen the petition for certification election had already been filed by +P% and $as then pendin' resolution. he said C4 cannot be deemed permanent, precludin' the commencement of ne'otiations by another union $ith the mana'ement. &n the meantime ho$ever, so as not to deprive the $or-ers of the benefits of the said a'reement, it shall be reco'ni?ed and 'iven effect on a temporary basis, subect to the results of the certification election. he a'reement may be continued in force if + is certified as the e5clusive bar'ainin' representative of the $or-ers or may be reected and replaced in the event that +P% emer'es as the $inner. his rulin' is consistent $ith our earlier decisions on interim arran'ements of this -ind $here $e declared ... $e are not unmindful that the supplemental collective bar'ainin' contract, entered into in the mean$hile bet$een mana'ement and respondent +nion contains provisions beneficial to labor. %o as not to preudice the $or-ers involved, it must be made clear that until the conclusion of a ne$ collective bar'ainin' contract entered into by it and $hatever labor or'ani?ation may be chosen after the certification election, the e5istin' labor contract as thus supplemented should be left undisturbed. &ts terms call for strict compliance. his mode of assurin' that the cause of labor suffers no inury from the stru''le bet$een contendin' labor or'ani?ation follo$s the doctrine announced in the recent case of Vassar Industries Employees v. Estrella (L6*>8>2, =arch 0!, !"#1). o 3uote from the opinion. <&n the mean$hile, if as contended by private respondent labor union the interim collective bar'ainin' a'reement $hich it en'ineered and entered into on %eptember 2>, !"## has, much more favorable terms for the $or-ers of private respondent Gassar &ndustries, then it should continue in full force and effect until the appropriate bar'ainin' representative is chosen and ne'otiations for a ne$ collective bar'ainin' a'reement thereafter concluded.< ! &t remains for the Court to reiterate that the certification election is the most democratic forum for the articulation by the $or-ers of their choice of the union that shall act on their behalf in the ne'otiation of a collective bar'ainin' a'reement $ith their employer. :5ercisin' their suffra'e throu'h the medium of the secret ballot, they can select the e5clusive bar'ainin' representative that, emboldened by their confidence and stren'thened by their support shall fi'ht for their ri'hts at the conference table. hat is ho$ union solidarity is achieved and union po$er is increased in the free society. Aence, rather than bein' inhibited and delayed, the certification election should be 'iven every encoura'ement under the la$, that the $ill of the $or-ers may be discovered and, throu'h their freely chosen representatives, pursued and reali?ed. @A:R:;/R:, the petition is 9:N&:9. he temporary restrainin' order of u'ust 2, !"1>, is L&;:9. Cost a'ainst the petitioner. %/ /R9:R:9. G.R. No. L-282 ay 5, 1989 +&&O*I+() L+/OR NION& 0+L petitioner, vs. ON. R+ (RR(R-*+LL(J+, a )ir!"or o "#! /ur!au o Labor R!%a"ion, ini"ry o Labor and ($7%oy$!n"< ILIIN( &O*I+L &(*RIY L+/OR NION 0&&L< &O(RN ILIIN(& ()(R+ION O L+/OR 0&L and G+' R+)ING, IN*., respondents. Petitioner ssociated Labor +nions (L+, for brevity) instituted this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to overturn the decision of the respondent direcstor 1 dated 9ecember !, !"1>, $hich ordered the holdin' of a certification election amon' the ran-6and6file $or-ers of the private respondent E@ radin', &nc. he averments in the petition therefor, $hich succinctly but sufficiently detail the relevant factual antecedents of this proceedin's, ustify their bein' 3uoted in full, thus !. he associated Labor +nions (L+) thru its re'ional Gice6Presidents eofanio C. NuIe?, in a letter dated =ay #, !"1> (NN: C) informed E@ radin', &nc. that maority of the latter7s employees have authori?ed L+ to be their sole and e5clusive bar'ainin' representative, and re3uested E@ radin' &nc., in the same Letter for a conference for the e5ecution of an initial Collective 4ar'ainin' 'reement (C4)B 2. E@ radin' &nc. received the Letter of L+ aforesaid on the same day of =ay #, !"1> as ac-no$led'ed thereunder and responded (sic) L+ in a letter dated =ay !2, !"1> (nne5 9) indicatin' its reco'nition of L+ as the sole and e5clusive
bar'ainin' a'ent for the maority of i ts employees and for $hich it set the time for conference andHor ne'otiation at * P.=. on =ay !2, !"1> at the Pillsbury /ffice, boiti? 4uildin' Juan Luna %treet, Cebu CityB 0. /n the follo$in' day of =ay!0, !"1>, L+ in behalf of the maority of the employees of E@ radin' &nc. si'ned and e5cuted the Collective 4ar'ainin' (NN: ;) ... *. /n =ay !8, !"1>, L+ in behalf of the maority of the employees of E@ radin' &nc. and E@ radin' &nc. si'ned and e5ecuted the Collective 4ar'ainin' 'reements (NN: ;) . . . . 8. &n the meantime, at about ! P.=. of =ay ", !"1>, the %outhern Philippines ;ederation of Labor (%P;L) to'ether $ith Na'-ahiusan' =amumuo sa E@ (N=E@) undertoo- a ... %tri-e ... after it failed to 'et the mana'ement of E @ radin' &nc. to sit for a conference respectin' its demands presented at !! .=. on the same day in an effort to pressure E@ radin' &nc. to ma-e a turnabout of its standi'n reco'nition of L+ as the sole and e5clusive bar'ainin' representative of its employees, as to $hich stri-e E@ radin' &nc. filed a petition for Restrainin' /rderHPreliminary &nunction, dfated June !, !"1> (nne5 A) and $hich stri-e Labor rbiter 4onifacio 4. umama- held as ille'al in a decision dated u'ust 8, !"1> (NN: &)B >. /n =ay !", !"1>, E@ Lumad Labor +nion (ELL+6P%%L+) ;ederation ... filed a Certification :lection petition (NN: J), but as found by =ed6rbiter Candido =. Cumba in its (sic) /rder dated Ju ne !!, !"1> (NN: ), $ithout havin' complied (sic) the subscription re3uirement for $hich it $as merely considered an intervenor until compliance thereof in the other petition for direct reco'bnition as bar'ainin' a'ent filed on =y 21, !"1> by southern Philippines ;ederation of Labor (%P;L) as found in the same order (NN: )B #. &nt he meantime, the Collective 4ar'ainin' 'reement e5ecuted by L+ and E@ radin' &nc. (NN: ;) $as duly filed =ay 2#, !"1> $ith the =inistry of Labor and :mployment in Re'ion G&&, Cebu cityB 1. Nevertheless, =ed6rbiter Candido =. Cumba in his order of June !!, !"1> (nne5 ) ruled for the holdin' of a ceritfication election in all branches of E@ radin' &nc. in Cebu City, as to $hich L+ filed a =otion for Reconsideration dated June !", !"1> (NN: L) $hich $as treated as an appeal on that 3uestioned /rder for $hich reason the entire record of subect certification case $as for$arded for the 9irector, 4ureau of Lbor Relations, =inistry of Labor and :mployment, =anila (NN: =)B ". 4ureau of Labor Relations 9irector Cresencio 4. raano, rendered a 9ecision on u'ust !0, !"1> (nne5 4) 'rantin' L+7s appeal (=otion for Reconsideration) and set aside the 3uestioned =ed6rbiter /rder of June !!, !"1> (nne5 ), on the 'round that the C4 has been effective and valid and the contract bar rule applicableB !. 4ut the same 9ecision of 9irector Crecensio 4. raano $as sou'ht for reconsideratrion both by %outhern Philippines ;ederation of Labor (%P;L) on u'ust 2>, !"1> (NN: N), supplemented by the 7%+4=&%%&/N /9 99&&/NL :G&9:NC:7 dated %eptember 2", !"1> (NN: /), and the Philppine %ocial %ecurity Labor +nion (P%%L+) on /ctober 2, !"1> (NN: P), $hich $ere opposed by both E@ radin', &nc. on %eptember 2, !"1> (NN: K) and L+ on %eptember !2, !"1> (NN: R)B 2
he aforesaid decision of then 9irector raano $as thereafter reversed by respondent director in her aforecited decision $hich is no$ assailed in this action. motion for reconsideration of L+ 3 appears to have been disre'arded, hence, its present resort 'rounded on 'rave abuse of discretion by public respondent. Public respondent ordered the holdin' of a certification election rulin' that the and addressed to petitioner, merely indicated that it $as
only e5press reco'nition of petitioner as said employees7 bar'ainin' representative that @e see in the records is in the collective bar'ainin' a'reement entered into t$o days thereafter. 6 :vidently, there $as precipitate haste on the part of respondent company in reco'ni?in' petitioner union, $hich reco'nition appears to have been based on the self6servin' claim of the latter that it had the support of the maority of the employees in the bar'ainin' unit. ;urthermore, at the time of the supposed reco'nition, the employer $as obviously a$are that there $ere other unions e5istin' in the unit. s earlier stated, respondent company7s letter is dated =ay !2, !"1> $hile the t$o other unions, %outhern Philippine ;ederation of Labor (hereafter, %P;L and Philippine %ocial %ecurity Labor +nion (P%%L+, for short), $ent on stri-e earlier on =ay ", !"1>. he unusual promptitude in the reco'nition of petitioner union by respondent company as the e5clusive bar'ainin' representative of the $or-ers in E@ radin', &nc. under the fluid and amorphous circumstances then obtainin', $as decidedly un$arranted and improvident. &t bears mention that even in cases $here it $as the then =inister of Labor himself $ho directly certified the union as the bar'ainin' representative, this Court voided such certification $here there $as a failure to properly determine $ith le'al certainty $hether the union enoyed a maority representation. &n such a case, the holdin' of a certification election at a proper time $ould not necessarily be a mere formality as there $as a compellin' reason not to directly and unilaterally certify a union. n additional infirmity of the collective bar'ainin' a'reement involved $as the failure to post the same in at least t$o (2) conspicuous places in the establishment at least five days before its ratification. 8 Petitioners rationali?ation $as that <(b)ecause of the real e5istence of the ille'al stri-e sta'ed by %P;L in all the stores of E@ radin', &nc. it had become impossible to comply $ith the postin' re3uirement in so far as the reali?ation of tits purpose is concerned as there $ere no impartial members of the unit $ho could be appraised of the C47s contents. < 9 his ustification is puerile and unacceptable. &n the first place, the postin' of copies of the collective bar'ainin' a'reement is the responsibility of the employer $hich can easily comply $ith the re3uirement throu'h a mere mechanical act. he fact that there $ere , and prompltly on thre follo$in' day the ne'oltiation panelB furnish respondent company final copies of the desired a'reement $hcih, $ith e3ual dispatch, $as si'ned on =ay !8, !"1>. nother potent reason for annullin' the disputed collective bar'ainin' is the findin' of respondent director that one hundred ei'hty6one( !1!) of the t$o hundred ei'hty6one (21!) $or-ers $ho , a petition for certification election had already been filed on =ay !", !"1>. lthou'h the petition $as not supported by the si'natures of thirty percent (0D) of the $or-ers in the bar'ainin' unit, the same $as enou'h to initiate said certification election. @A:R:;/R:, the order of the public respondent for the conduct of a certification election amon' the ran-6and6file $or-ers of respondent E@ radin' &nc. is ;;&R=:9. he temporary restrainin' order issued in this case pursuant to the Resolution of =arch 28, !"1# is hereby lifted.
