Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. Right To Self Organization - Summaries
I. Right To Self Organization - Summaries
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 ees 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.
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 unions 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 unions 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 unions 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
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 Ridges 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.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
8.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
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 ones
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 petitioners 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.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
employment. FEBTC employees declined to join but BPI refused to fire them. SC, in its
Main Decision, struck down BPIs 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.
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.
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.
Agdamag |Anderson |Aquino |De Guzman |Empaynado |Estremadura|Lopez|Macabagdal |Magtoto |Meer |Mercado|Militante |Pineda |Squillantini|Taruc |Chavez |Dulay |Galon |Quintos |Uy
Tagaytay Highlands opposed the petition for certification of election of THEU, a union
representing the formers 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.