Labor Law Review Case Digests
Right to Self-Organization Concept and Scope 1. NUWHRAIN-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary, July 31, 2009 Summary: A certification election was conducted to determine who can represent the rank-and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila. (see results below). Petitioner NUWHRAIN appealed to the Med-Arbiter, saying that the votes of the probationary ees must be counted and not be segregated. Med-Arbiter denied, saying the pursuant to the provisions of an existing CBA, probationary ees cannot vote. Sec of DOLE affirmed. CA affirmed. W/N probationary ees can vote. YES! Labor Code & its IRR makes no distinction. Even probationary ees can vote in CE. CBA provision cannot override the law. The significance of an ee’s right to vote in a certification election cannot be overemphasized. He has considerable interest in the determination of who shall represent him in negotiating the terms and conditions of his employment. W/N respondent HIMPHLU can already be declared as the EBR. NO! For there to be a valid CE, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast (double majority rule). Since probationary ees’ votes may be counted, the majority of those who vote will increase to 170, which is more than the 169 garnered by HIMPHLU. Thus, a runoff election must be conducted.
Labor Organization and Registration of Unions 2. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport And General Workers Organization (SMCEU-PTGWO) v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP), September 12, 2007 SUMMARY: PDMP-01 seeks to hold a certification election. PTGWO, the incumbent bargaining agent, challenges the legitimacy of PDMP-01, a charter of PDMP, as a labor organization. Issue: W/N PDMP-01 is a legitimate labor organization? NO. The Court held that PDMP cannot create a charter because it is merely a trade union center. Trade union centers are not given by the Labor Code or any statute the power to create locals or charters therefore, SMPPEU-PDMP must comply with the strict requirements provided for in Art. 234, LC.
3.
The Heritage Hotel Manila (Owned And Operated By Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation) v. Pinag-Isang Galing At Lakas Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Heritage Manila (Piglas-Heritage), October 30, 2009 Summary: Heritage Hotel Manila rank and file employees formed the HHE union. Another union was formed (PIGLAS). HHE union filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration. PIGLAS filed a petition for certification election that the company also opposed, alleging that the new union’s officers and members were also those who comprised the old union. It also filed a petition to cancel the union registration of PIGLAS, claiming that the documents submitted with the union’s application for registration bore the following false information: (1) List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100 union members; (2) Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended the meeting (3) Attendance Sheet of the meeting bore the signature of 127 members who ratified the union’s Constitution and By-Laws; and (4) Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attended that meeting. I: W/N union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for union registration – NO R: While it
Atty. Marlon Manuel
appears in the minutes of the organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from 11AM to 11PM. There is also nothing irregular about the fact that only 127 members ratified the union’s constitution and by-laws. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of the constitution and by-laws. Labor Code and its IRR do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should completely dovetail (fit). For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements I: W/N “dual unionism” is a ground for canceling a union’s registration. – NO R: The fact that some of PIGLAS union’s members were also members of the HHE union, is not a ground for canceling the new union’s registration. The right of any person to join an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another one. Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of registration had already been cancelled.
4. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010 Summary: The instant case is an off-shot of the desire of EREU to organize themselves as a legitimate labor union and Eagle Ridge’s opposition to their aspiration by claiming that they don not have the required membership by law because there are six members who retracted their membership. Our issue in this case is whether or not there was fraud, misrepresentation and/or false statement which shall warrant the cancellation of certificate of registration of EREU. NO. We have in precedent cases said that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union? As well, even with the withdrawal of six union members, there is still compliance with the mandatory membership requirement under Art. 234(c), for the remaining 24 union members constitute more than the 20% membership requirement of 22 employees.
5.
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical (SMCC-SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, 2011 Summary: Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms filed a petition for certification election. This was opposed by the Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation of the ground that it was not a legitimate labor organizaion for (1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union. The Court held that the charter certificate need not be certified under oath by the local union’s secretary or treasurer and attested to by its president. The union validly acquired the status of a legitimate labor organization upon submission of (1) its charter certificate, (2) the names of its officers, their addresses, and its principal office, and (3) its constitution and by-laws. Also, The mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union does not nullify its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization under the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
1
Labor Law Review Case Digests
6. Yokohama Tire Phils. v. Yokohama Employees Union, March 10, 2010 SUMMARY: Yokohama Employees Union (YEU) is the labor union of the rank and file employees of Yokohama Tire Phils, Inc. (YTPI) and it filed a certification of election. YTPI opposed the petition stating that YEU violated Art. 239(a) of the Labor Code by committing fraud and misrepresentation. YTPI alleged that YEU included the signature of Pineda and fraudulently claimed that it held an election of union officers during the organizational meeting. The Regional Office, BLR and CA however denied the petition for cancellation of YTPI. There are two issues in this case. First, whether or not YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation (No, YEU didn’t). Second, whether YTPI has the burden of proving that YEU committed fraud and misrepresentation (YES, YTPI has the burden). SC denied the petition of YTPI. On the first issue, SC stated that YEU did not commit any fraud or misrepresentation. BLR was correct on NOT relying on the affidavits of the witnesses of YTPI since the same was not as substantial as the samasamang pahayag of the 50 employees of YTPI that an election in fact did happen. Also, fraud and misrepresentation is a question of fact. CA already decided there was no fraud and misrepresentation, thus absent any grave abuse, CA’s factual findings bind the SC. On the second issue, SC stated that YTPI has the burden of proof of showing that union has committed fraud or misrepresentation. YTPI cannot claim that it is YEU who has the burden of proving an election happened. SC cited the case of Heritage Hotel of Manila and stated that, the charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
Eligibility for Membership; Special Groups of Employees 7. Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v. CA, August 30, 2006 SUMMARY: Tomondong was the Assistant to the Personnel Manager of CAPASCO, promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and later to that of Personnel Superintendent. The supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a move to organize a union (known as CUSE). Tamondong involved himself in the formation of the union and was elected as one of its officers. CAPASCO sent a memo to Tamondong requiring him to to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a continuance shall affect his employment. Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply letter invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. CAPASCO terminated the employment of Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious disloyalty to the company. Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving ULP. SC affirmed decision of CA that ULP and illegal dismissal were present. The findings of CA that Tamondong was indeed a supervisory employee and not a managerial employee, thus, eligible to join or participate in the union activities of private respondent CUSE, were supported by evidence. SC used as basis Article 212(m) of the Labor Code which differentiates supervisory employees from managerial employees. Labor Code provisions regarding disqualification of a managerial employee from joining, assisting or forming any labor organization does not apply to Tamondong. Being a supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the union
Atty. Marlon Manuel
8.
San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Laguesma, August 15, 1997 Summary: SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union filed before DOLE a Petition for Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. Med-Arbiter Reynante then ordered their conduct of certification as one bargaining unit. But San Miguel appealed with DOLE contending that (1) the 3 separate plants should not be grouped into one bargaining unit, and (2) supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3 & S4) should be excluded because these positions are confidential in nature. After 2 Motion for Reconsiderations, Undersecretary Laguesma applied Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC which declared confidential employees ineligible from forming or joining a labor union. He ordered S3, S4 and the so-called exempt employees to be excluded from those participating in the certification election, and directed the conduct of separate certification elections in each of the 3 plants. The SC held that S3, S4 and the exempt employees do not fall within the term “confidential employees” who may be prohibited from joining a union. To be a confidential employee, 2 criteria must be met: he (1) assists or acts in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. In other words, he must have necessary access to confidential information with respect to his employer’s labor relations policies. In the case at bar, S3, S4 and the exempt employees handle confidential information which relate to product formulation, product standards and product specification which concerns the employer’s internal business operations and not to the field of labor relations. Moreover, SC held that the employees of the 3 plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit for they have community or mutuality of interest, performing work of the same nature and receiving the same wages and compensation although belonging to 3 different plants of the Magnolia Poultry Division of San Miguel. . 9.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered Bank, April 22, 2008 Summary: SCBEU and SCB negotiated for a new CBA but there was a deadlock. The provisions in dispute were (1) the exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit & (2) the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for one month. On the first issue, SCBEU sought the exclusion of only the ff. employees: all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Dept., and one Human Resources (HR) staff. The Secretary denied because SCBEU failed to show that the employees sought to be removed qualify for exclusion. SC agreed with the Secretary. The exclusion of certain employees from the appropriate bargaining unit is a question of fact. The disqualification of managerial and confidential employees from joining a bargaining unit for rank and file employees is already well entrenched in jurisprudence. In this case, SC cited cases saying that bank cashiers, personnel of the Telex department, and HR staff as confidential employees.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
2
Labor Law Review Case Digests
10. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal v. DOLE, November 20, 2006 Emergency: the rank-and-file union and supervisory union of Coastal Cebu (CSBTI) both filed separate petition for certification election with the med-arbiter. The medarbiter denied their petition because the federations that issued the charters of the 2 unions, namely, ALU for the rank-file union and APSOTEU for the supervisory union, had a common set of officers. Thus, the supervisory and the rank-and-file unions were in effect affiliated with only one federation Both the Sec of DOLE and CA ruled against CSBTI and the med-arbiter. SC - Once a labor union (referring to the 2 federations) attains the status of a LLO, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation. Thus, when the personality of the LO is questioned in the same manner the veil of corporate fiction is pierced, the action partakes the nature of a collateral attack. In other words, you cant say ALU and APSOTEU are the same federation without filing an independent action assailing this. BUT! The limitation that supervisory employees cannot join rank-file unions and vice versa extends also to a supervisors’ local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees. In the instant case, the national federations that exist as separate entities to which the rank-and-file and supervisory unions are separately affiliated with, do have a common set of officers. In addition, APSOTEU, the supervisory federation, actively participates in the CSBTI-SU while ALU, the rank-andfile federation, actively participates in the CSBTI-RFU, giving occasion to possible conflicts of interest among the common officers of the federation of rank-and-file and the federation of supervisory unions. For as long as they are affiliated with the APSOTEU and ALU, the supervisory and rank-and-file unions both do not meet the criteria to attain the status of legitimate labor organizations, and thus could not separately petition for certification elections. . 11. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, August 3, 2010 Summary: ABI entered into a CBA with BLMA-Independent. Among the 12 groups of excluded employees were confidential and executive secretarties and purchasing and quality control staff. Dispute arose when ABI stopped deducting dues from 81 employees believing their membership in BLMA-INDEPENDENT violated the CBA. After failing to settle the issue in the grievance machinery, the matter was brought to the VA then to the CA. The issue is WON the 81 employees were excluded from and are not eligible for inclusion in the barganing unit for being confidential employees? No. Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee. They are disqualified because the union would not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the Union can also become company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the Union membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage. In this case, there is no showing that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the company, respondent
Atty. Marlon Manuel
claimed, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the dailypaid rank-and-file employees.
12. San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011 Emergency Recit: Pursuant to a certification election, SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union was certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisors and exempt employees of petitioner's Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis. SMF, however, asserts that (1) there should be different bargaining units for its “dressed” and “live” chicken operations; and (2) certain employees with access to salary and compensation data are confidential employees and should be excluded from the bargaining unit. As regards the first assertion, the Court ruled that applying the commonality or mutuality of interests test, there should only be one unit for the “dressed” and “live” chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining unit. (MAIN) As regards the second assertion, confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria must be met. Applying this, the position of Payroll Master, despite having access to compensation data, is not a confidential position. The position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit. Meanwhile, the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant were held to be confidential positions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of one’s work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation package, and human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the petitioner’s team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.
Union Security Clause 13. BPI v. BPI Employees Union, August 10, 2010 (Main Decision & Dissenting Opinion), October 19, 2011 Summary: (please bear with me, this case was 70 pages long) BPI and FEBTC merged with BPI absorbing all the assets and liabilities of FEBTC. The Union is the EBU of BPI’s rank-and-file employees in Davao and they have a Union Shop Clause in their CBA, which required all “new employees” falling within the bargaining unit who are regularly employed by BPI to join the Union as a condition of their continued
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
3
Labor Law Review Case Digests
employment. FEBTC employees declined to join but BPI refused to fire them. SC, in its Main Decision, struck down BPI’s argument that the FEBTC employees were not covered by the Union Shop Clause because they may not be considered as “new employees.” The Court stated that (1) they are “new employees” because there is nothing in law or jurisprudence stating classifying absorbed employees differently; (2) they were not assets and liabilities that could be transferred and absorbed by BPI; (3) the FEBTC employees did not fall under any of the exceptions to unionism [see below]; and that (4) the State has always favored unionism despite the freedom of a person to associate or not to associate. In the MR, the SC highlighted that unlike its pronouncement the Main Decision, it then concluded that employment contracts are automatically assumed. However, this does not change the outcome of the case as when the merger took place, a CBA was already entered into.
14. General Milling Corp. v. Casio, March 10, 2010 ER: In the CBA of IBM and GMC had a a maintenance of membership and closed shop clause. Casio et. al. were expelled from IBM. Gabiana, IBM’s regional director instructed GMC to dismiss them. GMC did. Held: Casio et. al were illegally dismissed because GMC fail to make a determination of the sufficiency of evidence to support the expulsion of Casio, et al., but also to accord the expelled union members procedural due process. Casio only received 1 notice: the one terminating him. There is no showing that they were informed of the charges or given an opportunity to explain.
15. PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Tañeca, August 9, 2010 SUMMARY: Respondents filed a Complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and money claims against petitioner PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI). PRI has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with NAMAPRI-SPFL for a period of five (5) years from May 22, 1995 until May 22, 2000. The CBA contained a union security provision. Atty. Fuentes sent a letter to the management of PRI demanding the termination of employees who allegedly campaigned for, supported and signed the Petition for Certification Election of the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) during the effectivity of the CBA. NAMAPRI-SPFL considered said act of campaigning for and signing the petition for certification election of FFW as an act of disloyalty and a valid basis for termination for a cause. W/N there was just cause to terminate the employment of respondents? NO. In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the union. rd 3 requisite: We find that there is no sufficient evidence to support the decision of PRI to terminate the employment of the respondents. Nothing in the records would show that respondents failed to maintain their membership in good standing in the Union. An "authorization letter to file a petition for certification election" is different from an actual "Petition for Certification Election." It was clear that the actual Petition for Certification Election of FFW was filed only on May 18, 2000. Thus, it was within the ambit of the freedom period which commenced from March 21, 2000 until May 21, 2000. Article 253, w/c was relied on by PRI, was misinterpreted. SC: It can be said that while it is
Atty. Marlon Manuel
incumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do so when no petition for certification election was filed. Moreover, the last sentence of Article 253 which provides for automatic renewal pertains only to the economic provisions of the CBA, and does not include representational aspect of the CBA.
16. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 Summary: Victoriano is a member of Iglesia ni Cristo and is an employee of Elizalde Factory. He is a member of the Elizalde Union that has a closed shop agreement with the Factory. In 1961, RA 3350 was passed, amending RA 875, and provided that a closed shop agreement “shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization.” Since Iglesia prohibits affiliation, Victoriano tendered his resignation from the Union. After being informed that he will be terminated, Victoriano filed an injunction case to enjoin the Factory/Union from terminating him. CFI granted the injunction, hence this direct appeal by the Union assailing the decision and questioning the constitutionality of RA 3350. The SC dismissed the appeal and ruled that RA 3350 is constitutional. (1) It did not infringe freedom of association. The right to join includes the right not to join. While the right to not join was limited in so far as the law (RA 875) allowed a closed shop agreement, the passage of RA 3350 provided an exception. The law, however, does not prohibit the members of such sects from affiliating—the law merely removed the compulsion. (2) It did not impair contractual obligations. Contractual rights are subservient to the free exercise of religion and the State has the power to safeguard the interests to the people. (3) It does not violate the non-establishment clause. It does not directly advance, or diminish, the interests of any particular religion. Although the exemption may benefit those who are members of religious sects, the benefit upon the religious sects is merely incidental and indirect. (4) It does not violate the prohibition from the requirement of religious test. The law provides an exception that does not require a positive act. (5) It does not violate EPC as there exists substantial distinction and the classification is germane to the purpose. Finally (6), it does not violate social justice. It promotes social welfare and equal access to opportunities.
17. Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division v. Ferrer-Calleja, 162 SCRA 367 SUMMARY: TUPAS was the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the workers in the Meat and Canning Division of Universal Robina. When the 3 year CBA ended, a new labor union, NEW ULO, composed mostly of Iglesia ni Kristo followers filed a petition for certification election. TUPAS moved to dismiss their petition. They argued that these Iglesia ni Kristo Members did not even want to affiliate with any labor union before. However, the SC decided in favor of NEW ULO. The fact that the SC in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union upheld the right of the Iglesia ni Kristo sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union.
Conditions of Membership and Rights of Members 18. Atlas Litographic Services v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12 SUMMARY:
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
4
Labor Law Review Case Digests
The supervisors union of Atlas affiliated with KAMPIL a national union. KAMPIL then filed a petition for certification of election on behalf of the supervisors union. Atlas opposed the petition because KAMPIL also represents the rank and file employees’ union. ISSUE: Whether or not, under Article 245 of the Labor Code, a local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank-and-file employees – NOT ALLOWED. HELD: The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local union of rank-and-file is replete with jurisprudence. The Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
Atty. Marlon Manuel
Tagaytay Highlands opposed the petition for certification of election of THEU, a union representing the former’s employees. According to Tagaytay Highlands. the list of employees submitted by the THEU was defective as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated and absent without leave (AWOL) employees. Highlands likewise claimed that some of the signatures were even secured through fraudulent and deceitful means. Basically, Highlands was challenging the existence of THEU. Highlands said that a union is not legitimate if it is composed of rank-and-file and supervisors. Since there is no legitimate union, there can be no certification of election – or that the petition for certification of election they filed is not valid. The Court sided with THEU. Court said that after a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. You can only do that by filing a petition for cancellation and inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud. Here since THEU was issued a certificate of registration already, the only way to cancel their registration is through a petition for cancellation.
19. De La Salle University Medical Center v. Laguesma, 294 SCRA 141 Tagaytay SUMMARY: Federation of Free Workers-National Federation (FFW-NF) issued a certificate to FFW-DLSU Supervisory Union Chapter recognizing it as a local chapter. FFW-NF, on behalf of FFW-DLSU, filed a petition for certification election among the supervisory employees of DLSU. DLSU, however, opposed the petition on the ground that managerial employees were signatories of the petition and FFW-DLSU was composed of both supervisory and rank and file employees. Moreover, DLSU argued the act of supervisory employees in affiliating with FFW-NF, which the rank and file employees are also affiliated, is violative of Article 245 (now Art. 251) of the Labor Code. Issue: W/N the unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly affiliate with the same national federation? YES. Supervisory employees have the right to self-organization like other classes of employees, except for managerial ones. Such right, however, is subject to the limitation that they cannot join an organization of rank or file employees. The reason for this limitation is the difference in the interest of the 2 groups, which would impair the relationship, collective bargaining etc. These consequences can obtain when (a) supervisory and R&F employees belong to a single union or (b) unions formed independently are allowed to affiliate with the same national union. The affiliation of 2 local unions with the same national federation, however, does not negate their independence. The local unions would NOT be allowed to affiliate with the same national federation only when the 2 conditions concur: (1) rank-andfile employees are directly under the authority of supervisory employees and (2) national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company. Both conditions were NOT satisfied in this case; that is why the union of supervisors was allowed to affiliate with the same national federation as that of the R&F employees.
20. Highlands v. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO, January 22, 2003 SUMMARY: Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
5
