labor batch 2

7/24/2019 Labor Batch 2

1/8

KAPATIRAN vs. CALLEJA

Facts: The petitioner, Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division seeks a reviewof the resolution of public respondent Pura Ferrer-Callea, Director of the!ureau of "abor #elations, dis$issing its appeal fro$ the %rder of the Med-

&rbiter #asidali C' &bdullah ordering a certi(cation election to be conducteda$ong the regular dail) paid rank and (le e$plo)ees*workers of +niversal#obina Corporation-Meat and Canning Division to deter$ine which of thecontending unions: a Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division T+P& "ocalChapter .o' /0123 b Meat and Canning Division .ew 4$plo)ees and5orkers +nited "abor %rgani6ation 7or 8.45 +"%9 for brevit)3 c .o union,shall be the bargaining unit of the dail) wage rank and (le e$plo)ees in theMeat and Canning Division of the co$pan)'

Fro$ /;< to /;2 T+P& was the sole and e=clusive collective bargainingrepresentative of the workers in the Meat and Canning Division of the

+niversal #obina Corporation, with a >-)ear collective bargaining agree$ent7C!& which was to e=pire on .ove$ber /?, /;2' 5ithin the freedo$ periodof @0 da)s prior to the e=piration of its C!&, T+P& (led an a$ended noticeof strike on epte$ber 1;, /;2 as a $eans of pressuring the co$pan) toe=tend, renew, or negotiate a new C!& with it'

The .45 +"%, co$posed $ostl) of workers belonging to the AB"4A& .AK#AT% sect, registered as a labor union' %n %ctober /1, /;2, the T+P&staged a strike' #%!A.& obtained an inunction against the strike, resulting inan agree$ent to return to work and for the parties to negotiate a new C!&'The ne=t da), %ctober />, /;2, .45 +"%, clai$ing that it has 8the $aorit)

of the dail) wage rank and (le e$plo)ees nu$bering //,9 (led a petitionfor a certi(cation election at the !ureau of "abor #elations' T+P& $oved todis$iss the petition for being defective in for$ and that the $e$bers of the.45 +"% were $ostl) $e$bers of the Aglesia ni Kristo sect which three 7>)ears previous refused to aliate with an) labor union' At also accused theco$pan) of using the .45 +"% to defeat T+P& bargaining rights' %n.ove$ber /2, /;2, the Med-&rbiter ordered the holding of a certi(cationelection within 10 da)s' T+P& appealed to the !ureau of "abor #elations7!"#' An the $eanti$e, it was able to negotiate a new >-)ear C!& with#%!A.&, which was signed on Dece$ber >, /;2 and to e=pire on .ove$ber/?, /0' %n Eanuar) 12, /;;, respondent !"# Director Callea dis$issed

the appeal' T+P& $otion for reconsideration was denied on March /2,/;;' %n &pril >0, /;;, it (led this petition alleging that the publicrespondent acted in e=cess of her urisdiction and with grave abuse ofdiscretion in ar$ing the Med-&rbiters order for a certi(cation election'

Assue: 5%. public respondent acted in e=cess of her urisdiction and withgrave abuse of discretion in ar$ing the Med-&rbiters order for acerti(cation election .%


2/8

#atio: The public respondent did not err in dis$issing the petitioners appeal'This Courts decision in Gictoriano vs' 4li6alde #ope 5orkers +nion,upholding the right of $e$bers of the AB"4A& .A K#AT% sect not to oin alabor union for being contrar) to their religious beliefs, does not bar the

$e$bers of that sect fro$ for$ing their own union' The public respondentcorrectl) observed that the recognition of the tenets of the sect x x xshould not infringe on the bsic right of self!orgni"tion grnted b#the constitution to $or%ers& regrdless of religious 'lition.( Thefact that T+P& was able to negotiate a new C!& with #%!A.& within the @0-da) freedo$ period of the e=isting C!&, does not foreclose the right of therival union, .45 +"%, to challenge T+P& clai$ to $aorit) status, b) (linga ti$el) petition for certi(cation election before T+P& old C!& e=pired andbefore it signed a new C!& with the co$pan)' &s pointed out b) Med-&rbiter&bdullah, certi)ction election is the best foru* in scertiningthe *+orit# sttus of the contending unions $herein the $or%ers

the*selves cn freel# choose their brgining re,resenttive thrusecret bllot.9 ince it has not been shown that this order is tainted withunfairness, this Court will not thwart the holding of a certi(cation election'

PAPER IN-/TRIE/ C0RP vs. LA1E/2A

Facts: Petitioner Paper Andustries Corporation of the Philippines 7PAC%P isengaged in the $anufacture of paper and ti$ber products, with principalplace of operations at Tabon, !islig, urigao del ur' At has over ,000?e$plo)ees,


3/8

giving PAC%P the opportunit) to (le its co$$ents*answer, and that P!T4+had no personalit) to (le the petition for certi(cation election' &fter P!T4+(led its co$$ents to petitioners appeal, the ecretar) of the "abor issued aresolution which upheld the Med-&rbiters order, with $odi(cation allowingthe supervising and staH e$plo)ees in Cebu, Davao and Aligan Cit) to

participate in the certi(cation election' During the pre-election PAC%PIuestioned and obected to the inclusion of so$e section heads andsupervisors in the list of voters whose positions it averred were reclassi(edas $anagerial e$plo)ees in the light of the reorgani6ation eHected b) it'+nder the #evised %rgani6ational tructure of the PAC%P, the co$pan) wasdivided into four 7


4/8

petition for certi(cation election was (led inas$uch as the sa$e is a valide=ercise of its $anage$ent prerogative, and that said progra$ has longbeen in the drawing boards of the co$pan), which was reali6ed onl) in /;and full) i$ple$ented in //' PAC%P e$phaticall) stresses that it could nothave conceptuali6ed the decentrali6ation progra$ onl) for the purpose of

8thwarting the right of the concerned e$plo)ees to self-organi6ation'9

The ,etition& not being *eritorious& *ust fil nd the s*e shouldbe s it is hereb# dis*issed. An +nited Pepsi-Cola upervisor) +nion7+P+ v' "agues$a, we had occasion to elucidate on the ter$ 8$anageriale$plo)ees'9 2ngeril e*,lo#ees re rn%ed s To, 2ngers&2iddle 2ngers nd 3irst Line 2ngers. To, nd 2iddle 2ngershve the uthorit# to devise& i*,le*ent nd control strtegic ndo,ertionl ,olicies $hile the ts% of 3irst!Line 2ngers is si*,l#to ensure tht such ,olicies re crried out b# the rn%!nd!)lee*,lo#ees of n orgni"tion' +nder this distinction, 8$anagerial

e$plo)ees9 therefore fall in two 71 categories, na$el), the 8$anagers9 perse co$posed of Top and Middle Managers, and the 8supervisors9 co$posedof First-"ine Managers' Thus& the *ere fct tht n e*,lo#ee isdesignted *nger( does not i,so fcto *%e hi* one.-esigntion should be reconciled the ctul +ob descri,tion of thee*,lo#ee& for it is the +ob descri,tion tht deter*ines the nture ofe*,lo#*ent'

In the ,etition before us& thorough dissection of the +obdescri,tion of the concerned su,ervisor# e*,lo#ees nd sectionheds indis,utbl# sho$ tht the# re not ctull# *ngeril but

onl# su,ervisor# e*,lo#ees since the# do not l# do$n co*,n#,olicies' PAC%Ps contention that the subect section heads and unit$anagers e=ercise the authorit) to hire and (re is a$biguous and Iuite$isleading for the reason that an) authorit) the) e=ercise is not supre$e but$erel) advisor) in character' Theirs is not a (nal deter$ination of theco$pan) policies inas$uch as an) action taken b) the$ on $atters relativeto hiring, pro$otion, transfer, suspension and ter$ination of e$plo)ees isstill subect to con(r$ation and approval b) their respective superior' Thus,where such power, which is in eHect reco$$endator) in character, is subectto evaluation, review and (nal action b) the depart$ent heads and otherhigher e=ecutives of the co$pan), the sa$e, although present, is not

eHective and not an e=ercise of independent udg$ent as reIuired b) law'

Further no denial of due process can be ascribed to public respondent+ndersecretar) "agues$a for the latters denial to allow PAC%P to presentadditional evidence on the i$ple$entation of its progra$ inas$uch as in theappeal before the said public respondent, PAC%P even then had alread)sub$itted volu$inous supporting docu$ents' The record of the case isreplete with position papers and e=hibits that dealt with the $ain thesis it


5/8

relied upon' 5hat the law prohibits is the lack of opportunit) to be heard'PAC%P has long harped on its contentions and these were dealt upon andresolved in detail b) public respondent "agues$a' 5e see no reason orusti(cation to deviate fro$ his assailed resolutions for the reason that lawand urisprudence aptl) support the$' Finall), considering all the foregoing,

the fact that PAC%P voiced out its obection to the holding of certi(cationelection, despite nu$erous opportunities to ventilate the sa$e, onl) afterrespondent +ndersecretar) of "abor ar$ed the holding thereof, si$pl)bolstered the public respondents conclusion that PAC%P raised the issue$erel) to prevent and thwart the concerned section heads and supervisor)e$plo)ees fro$ e=ercising a right granted the$ b) law' .eedless to stress,no obstacle $ust be placed to the holding of certi(cation elections, for it is astatutor) polic) that should not be circu$vented'

4ATAN1A/! I ELECTRIC C00PERATI5E vs. 60N1

Facts:

B'#' .o' @1>;@!atangas-A 4lectric Cooperative +nion (led with the D%"4, at an Pablo Cit),a petition for certi(cation election' The +.A%. alleged that it is a legiti$atelabor organi6ation3 that the !atangas-A 4lectric Cooperative Anc' 7!&T4"4Chas /?0 e$plo)ees, $ore or less3 that the +.A%. desires to represent theregular rank and (le e$plo)ees of !&T4"4C for purposes of collectivebargaining3 that there is no other union e=isting in !&T4"4C e=cept the+.A%.3 that there is no certi(ed collective bargaining agree$ent in the saidcooperative3 and that there has been no certi(cation election conducted in

!&T4"4C during the last twelve 7/1 $onths preceding the (ling of thepetition' Med-&rbiter Paterno D' &dap issued a resolution which gave duecourse to the petition and ordered the holding of a certi(cation election'!&T4"4C (led a $otion for reconsideration of the Med-&rbiterLs resolutioncontending that there was a legal i$pedi$ent to the holding of acerti(cation election considering that the for$ation of a union in acooperative is illegal and invalid, the ocers and $e$bers of the unionbeing the owners thereof' %n .ove$ber 12, /;/, a resolution was issued b)#o$eo &' oung, %cer in Charge, !ureau of "abor #elations, granting theappeal and revoking the Med-&rbiterLs order $andating the holding of acerti(cation election' &fter its $otion for reconsideration was denied, the

+.A%. (led the instant petition contending that the respondent Director ofthe !ureau of "abor #elations co$$itted a palpable error of law and*or graveabuse of discretion a$ounting to lack of and*or in e=cess of urisdiction in(nding and concluding that e$plo)ees of an electric cooperative who are atthe sa$e ti$e $e$bers of the cooperative are not allowed to for$ or oin alabor union in the electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining,and in revoking and setting aside the resolution dated &ugust 10, /;/ of


6/8

the Med-&rbiter directing the holding of a certi(cation election a$ong therank and (le e$plo)ees of !&T4"4C'

B'#' .o' 20;;0The Federation of Free 5orkers 7FF5 (led with the D%"4, at an Fernando,

Pa$panga, a petition for certi(cation election' The petition alleged, that theFF5 is a legiti$ate labor organi6ation3 that the !ulacan AA 4lectricCooperative Anc' 7!4C% AA is engaged in the service and suppl) of electriccurrent and, therefore, an e$plo)er under the provisions of the "abor Code3that the FF5 seeks to be certi(ed as the sole and e=clusive collectivebargaining representative of the regular rank and (le e$plo)ees and workersof !4C% AA for purposes of collective bargaining3 that there are $ore or less/


7/8

b) this Court enoining the respondents fro$ enforcing the Iuestionedorders'

B'#' .o' 2


8/8

#atio: An Cooperative #ural !ank of Davao Cit), Anc' vs' Pura Ferrer-Callea,Director, !ureau of "abor #elations, it was held that an e$plo)ee of acooperative who is a $e$ber and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the rightto collective bargaining' The decision in the case, inter alia, stated: = = = 7A

coo,ertive& therefore& is b# its nture di8erent fro* n ordinr#business concern being run either b# ,ersons& ,rtnershi,s& orcor,ortions. Its o$ners nd9or *e*bers re the ones $ho run ndo,erte the business $hile the others re its e*,lo#ees ' &s abovestated, irrespective of the na$e of shares owned b) its $e$ber the) areentitled to cast one vote each in deciding upon the aHair of the cooperative'Their share capital earn li$ited interests' The) eno) special privileges suchas e=e$ption fro$ inco$e ta= and sales ta=es, preferential right to suppl)their products to tate agencies and even e=e$ption fro$ the $ini$u$wage laws' An e*,lo#ee therefore of such coo,ertive $ho is *e*ber nd co!o$ner thereof cnnot invo%e the right to collective

brgining for certinl# n o$ner cnnot brgin $ith hi*self or hisco!o$ners' The olicitor Beneral he correctl) opined that e*,lo#ees ofcoo,ertives $ho re the*selves *e*bers of the coo,ertive hveno right to for* or +oin lbor orgni"tions for ,ur,oses of collectivebrgining for being the*selves co!o$ners of the coo,ertive'Jowever, in so far as it involves cooperatives with e$plo)ees who are not$e$bers or co-owners thereof, certainl) such e$plo)ees are entitled toe=ercise the rights of all workers to organi6ation, collective bargaining,negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and e=istinglaws of the countr)' = = = Petitioner +.A%. ad$itted in its petition that itsocers and $e$bers are also $e$bers-consu$ers of the cooperative' uch

being the case, the e*,lo#ees belonging to ,etitioner NI0N re not:uli)ed to for* lbor orgni"tion nd brgin collectivel#'4$plo)ees of a cooperative who are not $e$bers thereof are entitled toe=ercise the rights of all workers to for$, oin or assist labor organi6ations forpurposes of collective bargaining' Co$pliance with the urisdictionalreIuire$ent $akes it $andator) on the part of the !ureau of "abor #elationsto order the holding of a certi(cation election in order to deter$ine thee=clusive bargaining agent of the e$plo)ees' 5ith such, the !ureau is leftwithout an) discretion but to order the holding of a certi(cation election'

labor batch 2

Documents