FEDERATION The controversy of this case
OF FREE could be traced to the dispute
WORKERS V between a labor union with a
Noriel CBA (Universal Textile Mills
Workers Union) and another
union (Federation of Free
Oct 30, 1978 | Workers) wanting to hold a
Fernando certification election.
Universal Textile Mills Workers
Union (current union) and
Universal Textile Mills
(company). Federation of Free
Workers (another union) filed a
petition to hold a “certification
election” before the 60- day
freedom period. Meanwhile
Universal textile Mills Union
and the company entered into a
supplemental contract which
would extend the existing
collective bargaining
agreement which was ratified
by more than a majority of the
workers in the Universal Textile
Mills, Inc.
The Med-Arbiter denied the
certification but this was
reversed by respondent
Noriel(Dir. Of Bureau of Labor
Rel.). The case was
subsequently remanded to the
Med-Arbiter for the "reception
and evaluation of the
supporting signatures of at
least 30% of the employees
which petitioner may present
and for the resolution of all
(other) pending issues.”
UTMW Union’s motion for
reconsideration was denied,
with Noriel ruling that the
ratification of the CBA is being
protested and the same can be
threshed out in an appropriate
hearing before a Med-Arbiter
and that the issue can best be
resolved by an appreciation of
FFW’s evidence.
(NOTE: There was an express
admission made by Noriel himself
WON respondent Carmelo The first and fundamental
Noriel acted in grave abuse of duty of courts, in our
discretion in reversing the judgment, is to apply the law.
order of the Med- Construction and
Arbiter? YES interpretation come only
after it has been
Article 258 of the Labor Code demonstrated that
expressly mandates that once application is impossible or
the petition for certification inadequate without them.
election has been verified that it They are the very last
has the support of at least 30% functions which a court
of the employees of the should exercise. The
employees in the bargaining majority of the laws need no
unit, the petition must be interpretation or
granted. The provision is construction.
categorical and mandatory. It is
incumbent upon respondent
Noriel to order the certification Article 258 of the Labor
election to ascertain which Code: "Requisites for
labor organization should be certification election. — Any
the exclusive bargaining petition for certification
representative. election filed by any
legitimate labor organization
shall be supported by the
In People v Mapa, the Court
written consent of at least
held that the task of the
thirty percent (30%) of all the
judiciary is equally clear, the
employees in the bargaining
first and fundamental duty to
yield obedience to what is unit. Upon receipt and
ordained. Justice Moreland in verification of such petition, it
Lizarraga Hermanos v Yap Tico shall be made mandatory for
enunciated that the first and the Bureau to conduct a
fundamental duty of courts is to certification election for the
apply the law. Construction and purpose of determining the
interpretation come only after it representative of the
has been demonstrated that employees in the appropriate
application is impossible or bargaining unit and certify
inadequate without them. the winner as the exclusive
Justice Laurel reiterated this in bargaining representative of
Dir of Lands v Abejas where he all the employees in the unit."
said, “Where the law is clear,
this Court cannot over-
emphasize the necessity that
there be adherence.”
Although an administrative
agency entrusted with the
enforcement of a regulatory
statute is vested with
discretion, such is not
unlimited. In the case at hand,
the Labor Code itself sets limits
which must be observed.
The last sentence of Article
258 specifically defines what
must be done by the BLR once
the certification election is
conducted: to certify the winner
as the exclusive bargaining
that the petition for certification
election was supported by the
signatures of 1,070 employees,
more than 30% of the labor force in
the collective bargaining unit)
As a result, an order was
issued by Med-Arbiter on May
1977 calling for a hearing.
However, UTMW union,
despite a finding that the 30%
requirement was satisfied,
assailed Noriel’s decision on
Sept 1977 where the latter
recognized the effectivity and
validity of the agreement
between UTMW Union and
UTex for the 1st year of its
duration covering 1977,
subsequently directing the
respondent Union to
renegotiate with the
management the benefits and
other conditions of employment
for the 2nd and 3rd year of the
contract within 3 months from
receipt of the Resolution and to
submit the same for ratification
of workers through secret
ballot.
A Petition for Certiorari was
filed by FFW assailing the Sept
1977 decision of Respondent
Noriel. FFW claimed that Noriel
committed GAD in upholding
the CBA and refusing to issue a
certification of election
representative of the
employees in the unit. That is
the extent and scope of the
authority entrusted to
respondent Noriel as Director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations.
He cannot go further than that.
Yet, in the assailed order, he
would direct respondent Union
"to renegotiate with the
management at universal
Textile Mills the benefits and
other conditions of employment
for the second and third year of
the contract within three (3)
months from receipt of this
Resolution and to submit the
renegotiated benefits to the
workers for acceptance and
ratification through a secret
balloting to be supervised by
this Office." And this, too,
without the benefit of a
certification election mandated
by law. The failure to abide by
what the Labor Code
categorically requires is thus
plain and manifest. What was
done by respondent Noriel is
bereft of support in law, To
countenance it would be to foil
the statutory scheme. 'There
can be no other conclusion
except that his assailed order is
tainted with a serious
jurisdictional defect. This is
then the proper occasion for the
exercise of the corrective
authority of this Tribunal.
So as not to prejudice the
workers, until the conclusion of
the new CBA and whatever
labor organization was chosen
after the certification election,
the extended labor contract
should be left undisturbed