PHIL ILT TRANC RANCO O
SERVICE ICE
ENTER TERPRISES, petitioner,
vs.
it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI, KAWANI, ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT, MANGGAGAWA AT KONPIDENSIYAL SA PHILTRANCO, respondents.
On &pril &pril 2, !#$$, !#$$, a resolu resolutio tion n was was rende rendered red dismis dismissin sing g the Petition of /ertification Election filed by %&S&'& %O.
FACTS:
Peti Petiti tion oner er Philt Philtra ranc nco o Serv Servic ice e Ente Enterp rpri rise ses, s, Inc. Inc. is a land land transpor transportatio tation n company company engaged engaged in the business business of carrying carrying passengers and freight. The company employees included field workers consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach stewa stewards rds and and mecha mechanic nics s and and offic office e emplo employee yees s like like clerks clerks,, cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc. On ebruary !", !#$$, the %apisanan ng mga %awani, &ssistant, &ssistant, 'anggagawa at %onpidensyal sa Philtranco (%&S&'& %O) filed a petition for certification election with the *epartment of +abor and Emplo Employm yment ent,, alleg alleging ing among among others others that that it desir desires es to repre represen sentt all profes professio siona nal, l, techn technica ical, l, admin administ istrat rative ive,, and and conf confid iden enti tial al empl employ oyee ees s pers person onne nell of resp respon onde dent nt at its its establishments in +uon, -isayas and 'indanao for purposes of collective bargaining. They claim that the employees which they seek to represent were always always ecluded ecluded from participating participating in the certifica certification tion election election among rank and file employees and are also ecluded from the bargaining unit covered by the /0& between the company and its rank and file employees. On ebruary 12, !#$$, the 3ational 'ines and &llied 4orkers 5nion (3&'&456'I) (3&'&456'I) filed a motion for intervention alleging that
%&S&'& %O appealed to the 0ureau of +abor 7elations (0+7) On September ", !#$$ the 0+7 reversed the resolution of the 'ed6&rbiter. 'ed6&rbiter. & motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated October !8, !#$$. ISSUE:
!. 4O3 the 0+79s decision of granting %&S&'& %O9s Petition for /ertification Election was proper (3O) 1. 4O3 there eists substantial differences between the work performed by respondents and the rank and file employees (3O)
RATIO:
!. Sect Sectio ion n !! of 7ule 7ule II, II, 0ook 0ook - of the the Omni Omnibu bus s 7ule 7ules s implementing implementing the +abor /ode did away with eisting supervisors: unions classifying the members either as managerial managerial or rank and file employees employees depending depending on the work they perform. perform. If they discharge managerial functions, supervisors are prohibited from forming or ;oining any labor organiation. If they do not perform managerial work, they may ;oin the rank and file union and if none eists, they may form one such rank and file organiation. This rule was emphasied in the case of 0ulletin Publishing /orp. v. Sanche, It, therefore, follows that the members of the %&S&'& %O who are professi professional, onal, technical technical,, administr administrative ative and confident confidential ial
personnel of P
another unit for messengers and drivers, and so on in needless profusion.
The respondents claim that their status as rank and file employees was allegedly recognied by this /ourt in the case of Pantranco South Epress, Inc. v. 3&'&45.
1. The respondents state that this case is an eception to the general rule considering that substantial differences eist between the office employees or professional, technical, administrative and confidential employees vis6a6vis the field workers or drivers, conductors and mechanics of the petitioner. &gainst this contention, we find that the >substantial differences> in the terms and conditions of employment between the private respondent:s members and the rest of the company:s rank and file employees are more imagined than real. Psubstantial differences> eist between the employees
'anagers by any name may not ;oin the rank and file union. On the other hand, those who are rank and file workers may ;oin the eisting bargaining unit instead of organiing another bargaining unit and compelling the employer to deal with it. 4e are constrained to disallow the formation of another union. There is no dispute that there eists a labor union in the company, herein intervenor, the 3&'&456'I which is the collective bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in P
concerned. 4e find a commonality of interest among them. There are no compelling reasons for the formation of another union.
&pril 2, !#$$ is 7EI3ST&TE*. The restraining order issued by the /ourt on 3ovember ?, !#$$ is made permanent.
4
SO O7*E7E*.
