LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.
Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Labor Relations
Refer to the interactions between the employer and employees or their
representatives and the mechanism by which the standards and other terms and
conditions of employment are negotiated, adjusted and enforced.
Employer
Includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly.
The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents
except when acting as employer (Art 219 (e ), LC)
An employer is one who employs the services of others; one for whom
employees work and who pays their wages or salaries (Black Law Dictionary)
Employee
Includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited
to the employees of the particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly states.
It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result or in connection
with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has
not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment. (Art
219 (f ), LC)
Labor Organization
Means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for
the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning
terms and conditions of employment. (Art 219 (g ), LC)
Bargaining Representative
Means a legitimate labor organization whether or not employed by the
employer. (Art 219 (k ), LC)
Union
Refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective
bargaining and for other legitimate purpose.
Labor Dispute
Includes any controversy or matter concerning the terms and conditions of the
employment or association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer
and employee.
Right to Self-Organization
Refers to the right of the workers and employees to form, join, or assist unions,
organizations, or associations for the purposes of collective bargaining and/or for
mutual aid and protection, including the right to engage in peaceful and
concerted activities and participate in policy-decision making processes affecting
their rights and benefits.
Sec 8, Art III
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies, for the purposes not contrary
to law, shall not be abridged.
Legitimate Labor Organization
Means any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, and includes any
branch or local thereof. By registration with the DOLE, it is now clothed with legal
personality to claim the representational and bargaining rights enumerated in
Arts. 251 and 267 or strike and picket under Art 278.
Requirements:
a. Fifty pesos (P50.000 regstration fee;
b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of
the labor organizations, the minutes of the organizational meetings
and the list of workers who participated in such meetings;
c. The names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all the
employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant Employees under Labor Relations
union, minutes of adoption or ratification, and the list of the
members who participated in it. Managerial Employee
The person who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and
Requisites of Chartering:
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
a. A charter certificate issued by the federation or national union discharge, assign or discipline employees. (Art 219 (m ), LC)
indicating the creation or establishment of the local/charter;
b. The names of the local chapter’s officers, the addresses, and the Art 255: M.E are not eligible to join, assist, or form any labor
principal office of the local chapter; and organization.
c. The local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws is the same as that of
the federation or national union, this fact shall be indicated Rationale: The rationale for the inhibition is that if m.e would belong to
accordingly. or be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of their
loyalty to the union in view of evident conflict of interests. The union can
When does a Chapter become an LLO? become company-dominated with the presence of m.e in the union
The labor union or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested membership.
with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration or
certificate of creation of chartered local. Supervisory Employee
Are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such
Who may unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining? managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or
Art 253: All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural clerical In nature but requires the use of independent judgment. (Art 219 (m ),
enterprises and in religious charitable, medical or educational institutions LC)
whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and
to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of The person who effectively recommends such managerial actions: Provided that
collective bargaining. the recommendation is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires
the use of independent judgment.
Who cannot form, join, or assist labor organizations?
Rank-and-file employees
(E.O. No. 180)
The persons who are neither managerial nor supervisory employees are
1. Managerial employees; considered rank-and-file. They perform job that is routinary or clerical in nature.
2. Confidential emp; (Art 219)
3. Employees of international organizations;
4. Employee-members of a cooperative; Right of Supervisory Employees
5. Foreign workers; They shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-
6. Religious objectors; INC members file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their
7. Members of AFP, police officers, policeman, fireman, jail guards own. The rank and file union and the supervisors union operating within the
8. High level govt emp. same establishment may join the same federation or national union.
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Confidential Employees
Those who assist or act in a confidential capacity,
Those who formulate determine and effectuate management policies in the field
of labor relations.
An important element of the confidential employee rule is the employees access
to confidential labor relations information. An employee may not be excluded
from the appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to the
confidential information concerning the employers internal business which is not
related which is not related to the field of labor relations and has no relevance
to negotiations and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union
and the management are invariably adversarial (San Miguel Vs. Laguesma)
Rationale: if allowed to be affiliated with the union, managerial
employees might not be assured of the loyalty in view of the evident
conflict of interests and the union ca also become company-dominated
with the presence of managerial employees in the union membership.
Employees may also become the soured of undue advantage- spy of the
other party in the CBA.
Human Resource Assistants and Personnel Assistants are considered c.e
because their scope of work includes labor relations, recruitment and
selection of employees, access to ee’s personal files and compensation…
Religious Objectors
Members of religious sects cannot be compelled or coerced to join labor unions
even when said unions have closed shop agreements with the employers. Free
exercise of religious belief is superior to contract rights.
BUT, they have the right to vote in a C.E
(Reyes Vs. Trajano)
Are professors of state universities rank-and-file employees or high level
employees? Can they form and organize a separate bargaining unit for academic
and non-academic employees?
A: Professors who are not exercising managerial or highly confidential functions
are rank-and-file employees. They may organize themselves into a separate
collective bargaining unit, if so minded, considering that mutuality of interest is
wanting between the academic and non-academic personnel of the university
(UP v. Ferrer-Calleja, G. R. No. 96189, July 14, 1992).
Union officer must be an employee
No person who is not an employee or worker of the company or establishment
where a union operates shall be elected or appointed as an officer of such union.
Only an employee may be a union officer.
Q: Does a local union lose its legal personality when it affiliates with a
federation?
A: NO. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated, It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to
the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act
independently of the local union (Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v.
Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, September 22, 2010).
How local chapter is created ?
A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/chapter
by issuing a charter certificate indicating the establishment of a local/chapter.
1. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a PCE
from the date it was issued a charter certificate
2. The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a LLO only
upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter
certificate:
a. Names of the chapter’s officers, their addresses, and the principal
office of the chapter
b. Chapter’s constitution and by-laws
c. Where the chapter’s constitution and by-laws are the same as that of
the federation or the national union, this fact shall be indicated
accordingly
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
3. The genuineness and due execution of the supporting requirements shall be
a. Certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the local/chapter, and
b. Attested to by its president [IRR as amended by D.O. 40-F-03, Book V, Rule III,
Sec. 2(e)]
Bargaining Unit
It is a group of Ees of a given Er, comprised of all or less than all of the entire
body of the Ees which the collective interest of all the Ees consistent with equity
to the Er, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of
the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
Appropriate Bargaining Unit
The group of employees of an employer consisting of all or less than all of the
employees having mutual bargaining interest.
Tests to determine the appropriate bargaining unit (CGCS)
1. Community or mutuality of interest
2. Will of the employees or “Globe Doctrine”
3. Collective bargaining history
4. Similarity of employment status
Substantial or Mutuality of Interest Doctrine
The Ees sought to be represented by the CB agent must have substantial mutual
interest in terms of employment and working condition as evinced by the type
of work they perform (San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v. Confesor,
G.R. No. 111262, September 19, 1996).
Q: A registered labor union in UP, ONAPUP, filed a petition for certification
election among the non-academic employees. The university did not oppose,
however, another labor union, the All UP Workers Union assents that it represents
both academic and non-academic personnel and seeks to unite all workers in one
union. Do employees performing academic functions need to comprise a
bargaining unit distinct from that of the non-academic employees?
A: YES. The mutuality of interest test should be taken into consideration. There
are two classes of rank and file Ees in the university, those who perform
academic functions such as the professors and instructors, and those whose
function are non-academic who are the janitors, messengers, clerks etc. Thus,
not much reflection is needed to perceive that the mutuality of interest which
justifies the formation of a single bargaining unit is lacking between the two
classes of Ees (U.P. v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No.96189, July 14, 1992).
Certification Election
It is the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
representative of the Ees in an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of CB
or negotiation [IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (h)].
NOTE: The process is called CE because it serves as the official, reliable and
democratic basis for the BLR to determine and certify the union that shall be the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Ees for the purpose of bargaining with
the Er.
Purpose of CE
It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of:
1. Whether they want a union to represent them for CB or if they want no union
to represent them at all.
2. And if they choose to have a union to represent them, they will choose
which among the contending unions will be the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the Ees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
Who may file a Petition for Certification Election?
1. Any LLO
2. A national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate
to its local chapter participating in the CE
3. A local chapter which has been issued a charter certificate
4. An Er only when requested to bargain collectively in a bargaining unit where
no registered CBA exists (IRR as amended by D.O. 40-F-03, Book V, Rule VIII,
Sec. 1).
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Employer may file a petition for certification election
Er may file a petition for certification election when requested to bargain
collectively. But thereafter it should not be allowed to have an active role in the
CE; it shall merely act as a bystander.
NOTE: If the petition for certification election was filed by the federation
which is merely an agent, the petition is deemed to be filed by the
chapter, the principal which must be a legitimate labor organization. The
chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the mother union.
CASES: RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION
A. BASIS OF RIGHT
1. VASAAR EMPLOYEES UNION VS. ESTRELLA
3.
"There is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have
the right to form unions to take care of their interests vis-a-viz their
employees. Their freedom to form organizations would be rendered nugatory
if they could not choose their own leaders to speak on their behalf and to
bargain for them." It cannot be otherwise, for the freedom to choose which
labor organization to join is an aspect of the constitutional mandate of
protection to labor.
"Employees shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective
bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection." The new Labor Code is equally explicit on the matter. Thus:
"The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work."
2. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY VS. DRILON
The Court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the
Company, they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor
organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, there is no
constitutional and legal basis for their "union" to be granted their petition for
direct certification. This Court made this pronouncement in La Suerte Cigar and
Cigarette Factory v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, supra:
. . . The question of whether employer-employee relationship exists is a
primordial consideration before extending labor benefits under the workmen's
compensation, social security, medicare, termination pay and labor relations
law. It is important in the determination of who shall be included in a proposed
bargaining unit because, it is the sine qua non, the fundamental and essential
condition that a bargaining unit be composed of employees. Failure to establish
this juridical relationship between the union members and the employer affects
the legality of the union itself. It means the ineligibility of the union members to
present a petition for certification election as well as to vote therein . . . . (At p.
689)
METROLAB VS. CONFESSOR
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code[20] limits the ineligibility to join, form
and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of
their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary
manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and
highly confidential records.
Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres
…In the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are
supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives,
and to see to it that its interest are well protected. The employer is not
assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union
members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-
sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification
found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees
were written in the provision. If confidential employees could unionize
in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be
governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to
persons or individuals who are supposed to act in the interest of the
employers. It is not farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining,
they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty-bound to
protect. . . .
B. EXTENT AND SCOPE OF RIGHT
Art 257 (246): Non-abridgment of right to self-organization. It shall be unlawful
for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with
employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such
right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual
aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code.
1. REYES VS. TRAJANO
The right of self-organization includes the right to organize or affiliate with a
labor union or determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to
join, and to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of
collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for their
mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of
their rights and interests.
Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate
or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right to join, affiliate with,
or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. The right to form or join
a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the
exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to
exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to acquire
membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to
renounce such membership.
That the INK employees, as employees in the same bargaining unit in the true
sense of the term, do have the right of self-organization, is also in truth beyond
question, as well as the fact that when they voted that the employees in their
bargaining unit should be represented by "NO UNION," they were simply
exercising that right of self-organization, albeit in its negative aspect.
2. KNITJOY VS. CALLEJA
FACTS: The bargaining unit covered only the regular rank-and-file employees of
KNITJOY paid on a daily or piece-rate basis. It did not include regular rank-and-
file office and production employees paid on a monthly basis.
DOCTRINE: The right to form a union or association or to self-organization
comprehends two (2) broad notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, i.e., the
absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may act for himself
without being prevented by law, and (b) the power, by virtue of which an
employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association
3. PAN-AMERICAN AIRWAYS INC. VS P.A.A EMPLOYEES ASSOC.
The greater offense is to the labor movement itself, more specifically to the right
of self-organization. There is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that
laborers have the right to form unions to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their
employers. Their freedom organizations would be rendered nugatory if they
could not choose their own leaders to speak on their behalf and to bargain for
them.
If petitioner were to succeed in their unprecedented demand, the laborers in
this particular union would thus be confronted with the sad spectacle of the
leaders of their choice condemned as irresponsible, possibly even constituting a
menace to the operations of the enterprise. That is an indictment of the gravest
character, devoid of any factual basis. What is worse, the result, even if not
intended, would be to call into question their undeniable right to choose their
leaders, who must be treated as such with all the respect to which they are
legitimately entitled. The fact that they would be paid but not be allowed to work
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
is, to repeat, to add to the infamy that would thus attach to them necessarily,
but to respondent union equally.
Apparently, respondent Court was alive to the implication of such an
unwarranted demand, the effect of which would have been to deprive
effectively the rank and file of their freedom of choice as to who should
represent them. For what use are leaders so undeserving of the minimum
confidence. To that extent then, their constitutional and statutory right to
freedom of association suffers an impairment hardly to be characterized as
inconsequential.
4. UNION OF SUPERVISORS (RB NATU) VS. SEC OF LABOR
C. WORKER’S WITH RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Art. 253 (243). Coverage and employees’ right to self-organization. All
persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises
and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether
operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and
to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for
purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant
workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any
definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and
protection.
ALL EMPLOYEES
1. ALLIANCE OF NACIONALIST VS. SAMANA BAY
We reiterate the rule that all employees enjoy the right to self-organization
and to form and join labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining. This is a fundamental right of labor and
derives its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to
labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws rules
or regulations, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors
the exercise of labor rights.
This Court is not ready to bend this principle to yield to a mere procedural defect,
to wit: failure to observe certain procedural requirements for a valid
disaffiliation. Non-compliance with the procedure on disaffiliation, being
premised on purely technical grounds cannot rise above the fundamental right
of self-organization.
A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure
and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their
employee-members. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation
with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing
its creation to the will of its members. The mere act of affiliation does not divest
the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation
the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract
of agency where the former acts in representation of the latter.
2. BAUTISTA VS. INCIONG
3. KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIV VS. CALLEJA
The public respondent did not err in dismissing the petitioner's appeal in BLR
Case No. A-12-389-87. This Court's decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54, upholding the right of members 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. The public
respondent correctly observed that the "recognition of the tenets of the sect ...
should not infringe on the basic right of self-organization granted by the
constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation."
EMPLOYEES OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATONS
1. FEU- DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION VS. TRAJANO
Facts: That as early as May 10, 1976, private respondent filed a similar
petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and Employment but
the petition was denied by the MED Arbiter and the Secretary of Labor on appeal,
on the ground that the petitioner was a non-stock, non-profit medical institution,
therefore, its employees may not form, join, or organize a union pursuant to
Article 244 of the Labor Code.
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Held: At the time private respondent filed its petition for certification election
on February 13, 1986, Article 244 of the Labor Code was already amended by
Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, to wit:
Art. 244. Coverage and employees' right to self-organization. — All persons
employed in commercial, industrial and charitable, medical or
educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the
right to self-organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
bargaining. Ambulant intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed
people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form
labor organizations for the purpose of enhancing and defending their
interests and for their mutual aid and protection.
Under the aforequoted provision, there is no doubt that rank and file employees
of non-profit medical institutions (as herein petitioner) are now permitted to
form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective
bargaining. Since private respondent had complied with the requisites provided
by law for calling a certification election (p. 15, Rollo), it was incumbent upon
respondent Director to conduct such certification election to ascertain the
bargaining representative of petitioner's employees.
EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
Art 254 (244): Right of employees in the public service. Employees of
government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have
the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form
associations for purposes not contrary to law.
SUPERVISORS
Art 255 (245): Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees
shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-
file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of
their own.
TEST TO DETERMINE SUPERVISORY STATUS
1. FILOIL REFINERY CORP VS. FILOIL SUPERVISORY AND CONFIDENTIAL EMP
Upholding the right of the supervisors and confidential employees to organize
respondent association and to compel petitioner to negotiate and bargain
collectively with it. Petitioner's argument that since supervisors form part of
management, to allow them to bargain collectively would be tantamount to
management bargaining with itself may be a well-turned phrase but ignores the
dual status of a supervisor as a representative of management and as an
employee.
If indeed the supervisor is absolutely undistinguishable from management, then
he would be beyond removal or dismissal, for as respondent association
counters, "how can management remove or dismiss itself?"
As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG & P Co. of Manila, Inc. vs.
C.I.R., section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act "explicitly provides that "employees"
— and this term includes supervisors — "shall have the right to self-organization,
and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representations of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid or protection" and that "individuals employed as supervisors ...
may form separate organizations of their own". Indeed, it is well settled that "in
relation to his employer," a foreman or supervisor "is an employee within the
meaning of the Act" ... For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union
activities and any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an
unfair labor practice.
2. TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS CORP VS. T.M.P.C. LABOR UNION
Facts: Petitioner filed a Position Paper on February 23, 1993 seeking the denial
of the issuance of an Order directing the holding of a certification election on
two grounds: first, that the respondent union, being "in the process of
registration" had no legal personality to file the same as it was not a legitimate
labor organization as of the date of the filing of the petition; and second, that
the union was composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees in
violation of law.
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Held: The purpose of every certification election is to determine the exclusive ALIENS- Art 284 (269): Prohibition against aliens; exceptions. All aliens, natural
representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from
of collective bargaining. A certification election for the collective bargaining engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without
process is one of the fairest and most effective ways of determining which prejudice to normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized
labor organization can truly represent the working force. In determining the international labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens working in the
labor organization which represents the interests of the workforce, those country with valid permits issued by the Department of Labor and
interests must be, as far as reasonably possible, homogeneous, so as to Employment, may exercise the right to self-organization and join or assist
genuinely reach the concerns of the individual members of a labor labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective
organization. bargaining: Provided, further, That said aliens are nationals of a country which
grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers.
A labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees
is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate SECURITY GUARDS ORGANIC TO ESTABLISHMENT
labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of
rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a 1. UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORS UNION VS LAGUESMA
legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for certification
election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary,D. D. WORKERS WITH NO RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION
therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election,
to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status MANAGERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor
Code. Art. 255 (245): Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor
organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are
3. PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP VS. LAGUESMA not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
In the petition before us, a thorough dissection of the job description of the the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that organizations of their own.
they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they do
not lay down company policies. PICOP's contention that the subject section 1. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF LABOR VS. CALLEJA
heads and unit managers exercise the authority to hire and fire is ambiguous
and quite misleading for the reason that any authority they exercise is not 1. Executes and coordinates work plans emanating from his supervisors.
supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination
of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters Thus, it is clear from the above provisions that the functions of the questioned
relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of positions are not managerial in nature because they only execute approved and
employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective established policies leaving little or no discretion at all whether to implement the
superior. Thus, where such power, which is in effect recommendatory in said policies or not.
character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department
heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although
present, is not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as
required by law.
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
2. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISE VS. BLR
We see no need for the formation of another union in PHILTRANCO. The qualified
members of the KASAMA KO may join the NAMAWU-MIF if they want to be union
members, and to be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy of the
Department of Labor and Employment, and the laws it enforces. As held in the case
of General Rubber and Footwear Corp. v. Bureau of Labor Relations (155 SCRA 283
[1987]):
... It has been the policy of the Bureau to encourage the formation of an
employer unit 'unless circumstances otherwise require. The proliferation of
unions in an employer unit is discouraged as a matter of policy unless there
are compelling reasons which would deny a certain class of employees the
right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. This case does
not fall squarely within the exception.
There are no compelling reasons in this case such as a denial to the KASAMA KO group
of the right to join the certified bargaining unit or substantial distinctions warranting
the recognition of a separate group of rank and file workers. Precisely, NAMAWU-MIF
intervened to make it clear it has no objections to qualified rank and file workers
joining its union.
GOLDEN FARMS, INC. VS. CALLEJA
Furthermore, the signatories to the petition for certification election are the very
type of employees by the nature of their positions and functions which We have
decreed as disqualified from bargaining with management in case of Bulletin
Publishing Co. Inc. vs. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, etc. (144 SCRA 628) reiterating
herein the rationale for such ruling as follows: if these managerial employees
would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of
their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests or that the Union
can be company- dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union
membership. A managerial employee is defined under Art. 212 (k) of the new
Labor Code as "one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such
managerial actions. All employees not falling within this definitions are
considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book."
This rationale holds true also for confidential employees such as accounting
personnel, radio and telegraph operators, who having access to confidential
information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may
act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. This is
specially true in the present case where the petitioning Union is already the
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees in the establishment. To allow
the confidential employees to join the existing Union of the rank-and-file would
be in violation of the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement wherein this
kind of employees by the nature of their functions/positions are expressly
excluded.
As to the company foremen, while in the performance of supervisory functions,
they may be the extension or alter ego of the management. Adversely, the
foremen, by their actuation, may influence the workers under their supervision
to engage in slow down commercial activities or similar activities detrimental to
the policy, interest or business objectives of the company or corporation, hence
they also cannot join.
SAN MIGUEL CORP SUPERVISORS VS. LAGUESMA
Confidential Employee- "If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a
factor in the determination of an employee's confidential status, such information
must relate to the employer's labor relations policies. Thus, an employee of a labor
union, or of a management association, must have access to confidential labor
relations information with respect to his employer, the union, or the association, to
be regarded a confidential employee, and knowledge of labor relations information
pertaining to the companies with which the union deals, or which the association
represents, will not cause an employee to be excluded from the bargaining unit
representing employees of the union or association." "Access to information which is
regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint, such as
financial information or technical trade secrets, will NOT render an employee a
confidential employee."
In the case at bar, supervisors 3 and above may not be considered confidential
employees merely because they handle "confidential data" as such must first be
strictly classified as pertaining to labor relations for them to fall under said
restrictions. The information they handle are properly classifiable as technical and
internal business operations data which, to our mind, has no relevance to negotiations
and settlement of grievances wherein the interests of a union and the management
 LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
are invariably adversarial. Since the employees are not classifiable under the
confidential type, this Court rules that they may appropriately form a bargaining unit
for purposes of collective bargaining. Furthermore, even assuming that they are
confidential employees, jurisprudence has established that there is no legal
prohibition against confidential employees who are not performing managerial
functions to form and join a union.
An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as "a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which
the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer,
indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the
law."
A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial,
mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective
bargaining.
It is readily seen that the employees in the instant case have "community or
mutuality of interests," which is the standard in determining the proper constituency
of a collective bargaining unit. It is undisputed that they all belong to the Magnolia
Poultry Division of San Miguel Corporation. This means that, although they belong
to three different plants, they perform work of the same nature, receive the same
wages and compensation, and most importantly, share a common stake in
concerted activities.
WORKERS/MEMBERS OF COOPERATIVES
CENECO VS. DOLE
Issue: whether or not the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership
from the cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the
negotiations for a collective bargaining agreemTent proposed by the latter?
Held: The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their
withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the
resignation of the member- employees is an expression of their preference for union
membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the
State to afford full protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective
bargaining mandates that the employees' right to form and join unions for purposes
of collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration.
Membership in an electric cooperative which merely vests in the member a right to
vote during the annual meeting becomes too trivial and insubstantial vis-a-vis the
primordial and more important constitutional right of an employee to join a union
of his choice. Besides, the 390 employees of CENECO, some of whom have never
been members of the cooperative, represent a very small percentage of the
cooperative's total membership of 44,000. It is inconceivable how the withdrawal of
a negligible number of members could adversely affect the business concerns and
operations of CENECO.
NON EMPLOYEES
SINGER SEWING MACHINE VS. DRILON
The present case mainly calls for the application of the control test, which if not
satisfied, would lead us to conclude that no employer-employee relationship exists.
Hence, if the union members are not employees, no right to organize for purposes of
bargaining, nor to be certified as such bargaining agent can ever be recognized. The
following elements are generally considered in the determination of the employer-
employee relationship; "(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employee's conduct — although the latter is the most important element" The Court
finds that since private respondents are not employees of the Company, they are
not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for
purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, there is no constitutional and legal
basis for their "union" to be granted their petition for direct certification. This Court
made this pronouncement in La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of
Bureau of Labor Relations, supra:
. . . The question of whether employer-employee relationship exists is a
primordial consideration before extending labor benefits under the workmen's
compensation, social security, medicare, termination pay and labor relations law.
It is important in the determination of who shall be included in a proposed
bargaining unit because, it is the sine qua non, the fundamental and essential
condition that a bargaining unit be composed of employees. Failure to establish
this juridical relationship between the union members and the employer affects
the legality of the union itself. It means the ineligibility of the union members to
present a petition for certification election as well as to vote therein . . . .
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
FIDUCIARY EMPLOYEES
METROLAB INC. VS CONFESSOR
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has
extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of
their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner
to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly
confidential records.
PARTY PROTECTED BY RIGHT
MACTAN WORKERS UNION VS. ABOITIZ
"the right to be the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union 'designated or selected' for
such purpose 'by the majority of the employees' in the unit concerned."9 If it were
otherwise, the highly salutory purpose and objective of the collective bargaining
scheme to enable labor to secure better terms in employment condition as well as
rates of pay would be frustrated insofar as non-members are concerned, deprived
as they are of participation in whatever advantages could thereby be gained. The
labor union that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative
does not act for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a
bargaining unit. It is not to be indulged in any attempt on its part to disregard the
rights of non-members. Yet that is what intervenor labor union was guilty of,
resulting in the complaint filed on behalf of the laborers, who were in the ranks of
plaintiff Mactan Labor Union.
SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF RIGHT
Art. 246. Non-abridgment of right to self-organization. It shall be unlawful for
any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with
employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such
right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose
for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of
this Code.
Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer
to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
a. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization;
b. To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee
shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which
he belongs;
c. To contract out services or functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;
d. To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation
or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of
financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters;
e. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any
other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment,
except those employees who are already members of another union at
the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement.
Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of
the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a
reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members
of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union
members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining
agreement: Provided, that the individual authorization required under
Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-
members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;
f. To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an
employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this
Code;
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
h. To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or
agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or
any other dispute; or
i. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and
agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have actually
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held
criminally liable. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981)
Art. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be unfair labor
practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
a. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to
prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership;
b. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect
to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to
terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and
conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is
made available to other members;
c. To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer,
provided it is the representative of the employees;
d. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to
pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an
exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed,
including the demand for fee for union negotiations;
e. To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as
part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other
dispute; or
f. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers,
members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or
ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
POLICY
Art 211: (b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the
enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and
development;
(c )To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united
labor movement;
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS- UNIONS
Art 211 (g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and
policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
GENERAL DEFINITION
AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOC OF THE PH VS. CIR
"labor organization," which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875 defines as any union or
association of employees which exist, in whole or in part, for the purpose of the
collective bargaining or dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions
of employment." The absence of the condition which the court below would
attach to the statutory concept of a labor organization, as being limited to the
employees of particular employer, is quite evident from the law. The emphasis
of Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the purposes for which a union or association
of employees established rather than that membership therein should be limited
only to the employees of a particular employer. Trite to say, under Section 2(h)
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
of R.A 875 "representative" is define as including "a legitimate labor organization
or any officer or agent of such organization, whether or not employed by the
employer or employee whom he represents." It cannot be overemphasized
likewise that labor dispute can exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand
in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (Section 2(j), R.a. 875).
LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Art 212 “Legitimate labor organization” means any labor organization
duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and
includes any branch or local thereof’
DOLE REGISTRATION AS BASIS
CEBU SEAMANS ASSOC INC VS. CALLEJA
On 23 June 1969, the same group registered its association with this Bureau as a
labor union known as the Seamen's Association of the Philippines, Incorporated
(SAPI).
Article 226 of the Labor Code vests upon the Bureau of Labor Relations and Labor
Relations Division the original and exclusive authority and jurisdiction to act on all
inter-union and intra-union disputes. Therefore, the Med-Arbiter originally, and the
Director on appeal, correctly assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.
The same group registered the organization with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
as Seamen's Association of the Philippines (SAPI). It is the registration of the
organization with the BLR are not with the SEC which made it a legitimate labor
organization with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
COMPANY UNION
Art 212 (i) “Company union” means any labor organization whose
formation, function or administration has been assisted by any act
defined as unfair labor practice by this Code.
Rationale: The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute
the law between the parties. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke
its provisions. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the
aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress.6 Nor does it suffice as a
defense that the claim is made on behalf of non-members of intervenor
Associated Labor Union, for it is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a
collective bargaining agreement extend to the laborers and employees in the
collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the chosen
bargaining labor organization.7 Any other view would be a discrimination on
which the law frowns. It is appropriate that such should be the case. As was held
in United Restauror's Employees and Labor Union v. Torres,8 this Court speaking
through Justice Sanchez, "the right to be the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor
union 'designated or selected' for such purpose 'by the majority of the
employees' in the unit concerned."9 If it were otherwise, the highly salutory
purpose and objective of the collective bargaining scheme to enable labor to
secure better terms in employment condition as well as rates of pay would be
frustrated insofar as non-members are concerned, deprived as they are of
participation in whatever advantages could thereby be gained. The labor union
that gets the majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act
for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. It
is not to be indulged in any attempt on its part to disregard the rights of non-
members. Yet that is what intervenor labor union was guilty of, resulting in the
complaint filed on behalf of the laborers, who were in the ranks of plaintiff
Mactan Labor Union.
LABOR UNION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION
REQUIREMENTS
Art. 234. Requirements of registration. Any applicant labor organization,
association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality
and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
registration based on the following requirements.
a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the
list of the workers who participated in such meetings;
c. The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%)
of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to
operate; (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24,
1986)
d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.
Art. 235. Action on application. The Bureau shall act on all applications for
registration within thirty (30) days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary
or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and attested to by its
president.
Art. 237. Additional requirements for federations or national unions. Subject to
Article 238, if the applicant for registration is a federation or a national union, it
shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding Articles, submit the
following:
a. Proof of the affiliation of at least ten (10) locals or chapters, each of
which must be a duly recognized collective bargaining agent in the
establishment or industry in which it operates, supporting the
registration of such applicant federation or national union; and
b. The names and addresses of the companies where the locals or chapters
operate and the list of all the members in each company involved.
REQUIREMENTS AND RATIONALE
PROGRESSIVE DEVT CORP VS. SEC OF LABOR
But when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter of a
federation, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no
longer required. The provisions governing union affiliation are found in Rule II,
Section 3, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the relevant portions of which are
cited below:
Sec. 3. Union affiliation; direct membership with national union.
— An affiliate of a labor federation or national union may be a
local or chapter thereof or an independently registered union.
a) The labor federation or national union concerned shall issue
a charter certificate indicating the creation or establishment of a
local or chapter, copy of which shall be submitted to the Bureau
of Labor Relations within thirty (30) days from issuance of such
charter certificate.
b) An independently registered union shall be considered an
affiliate of a labor federation or national union after submission
to the Bureau of the contract or agreement of affiliation within
thirty (30) days after its execution.
xxx xxx xxx
e) The local or chapter of a labor federation or national union
shall have and maintain a constitution and by laws, set of
officers and books and accounts. For reporting purposes, the
procedure governing the reporting of independently registered
unions, federations or national unions shall be observed.
The rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and papers be
certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, and
attested to by president is apparent. The submission of the required
documents (and payment of P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's
basis for approval of the application for registration. Upon approval, the
labor union acquires legal personality and is entitled to all the rights and
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization. The employer section is not a limitation to the right of assembly or association, which may be
naturally needs assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona exercised with or without said registration. The latter is merely a condition sine
fide organization, one which has not submitted false statements or qua non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor organizations, associations
misrepresentations to the Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and or unions and the possession of the 'rights and privileges granted by law to
attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay these apprehensions legitimate labor organizations.' The Constitution does not guarantee these rights
of management. Not only is the issuance of any false statement and and privileges, much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations,
misrepresentation a ground for cancellation of registration (see Article 239 for the possession and exercise of which registration is required to protect both
(a), (c) and (d)); it is also a ground for a criminal charge of perjury. labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as organizers,
although not truly accredited agents of the union they purport to represent.
The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the Such requirement is a valid exercise of the police power, because the activities
commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting
in which labor organizations, associations and union or workers are engaged
employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose
affect public interest, which should be protected.
sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious ends.
CANCELLATION OF UNION CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
EFFECT OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Art. 238. Cancellation of registration; appeal. The certificate of registration of any
VILLAR VS. INCIONG
legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, shall be cancelled by the
Bureau if it has reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor
A closed-shop is a valid form of union security, and a provision therefor in a
organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements herein
collective bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of
prescribed.
association guaranteed by the Constitution. (Manalang, et al. vs. Artex
Development Co., Inc., et al., L-20432, October 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 561). Where
[The Bureau upon approval of this Code shall immediately institute cancellation
in a closed-shop agreement it is stipulated that union members who cease to be
proceedings and take such other steps as may be necessary to restructure all
in good standing shall immediately be dismissed, such dismissal does not
existing registered labor organizations in accordance with the objective
constitute an unfair labor practice exclusively cognizable by the Court of
envisioned above.]
Industrial Relations. (Seno vs. Mendoza, 21 SCRA 1124).
Art. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. The following shall
EFFECT OF REGISTRATION
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:
PAMBANSANG KAPATIRAN VS. SEC OF LABOR
a. Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the
adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
In Phil. Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 40, We had
thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of members who took
occasion to interpret Section 23 of R.A. No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) requiring
part in the ratification;
of labor unions registration by the Department of Labor in order to qualify as
"legitimate labor organization," and We said:
b. Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding
paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the
The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto;
the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is
devoid of factual basis. The registration prescribed in paragraph (b) of said
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
c. Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the in the constitution and by-laws of the organization;
election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters,
or failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly c. The members shall directly elect their officers, including those of the
elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) national union or federation, to which they or their union is affiliated, by
days from election; secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. No qualification requirements
for candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership
d. Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty in good standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any
(30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of Labor and
false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself; Employment with a list of the newly-elected officers, together with the
appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of
e. Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the “cabo” system, or funds, within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or
otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law; from the occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor
organization; (As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. 6715, March
f. Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and 21, 1989)
conditions of employment below minimum standards established by
law; d. The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation,
any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the
g. Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from organization, unless the nature of the organization or force majeure
employers; renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case, the board of
directors of the organization may make the decision in behalf of the
h. Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special general membership;
assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written
authorizations of the members; e. No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in
membership any individual who belongs to a subversive organization or
i. Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or who is engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive activity;
whenever required by the Bureau; and
f. No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
j. Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237 and 238. shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any
position in the union;
Art. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. The
following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization: g. No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any
fees, dues, or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement
a. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its
of a legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or constitution and by-laws;
oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed;
h. Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall
b. The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the
officers and representatives of all financial transactions as provided for collection and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
maintained for the purpose;
i. The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or
object other than those expressly provided by its constitution and by-
laws or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the
majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the
purpose;
j. Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a
record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be
evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made,
which shall state the date, place and purpose of such payment. Such
record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.
Any action involving the funds of the organization shall prescribe after
three (3) years from the date of submission of the annual financial report
to the Department of Labor and Employment or from the date the same
should have been submitted as required by law, whichever comes
earlier: Provided, That this provision shall apply only to a legitimate labor
organization which has submitted the financial report requirements
under this Code: Provided, further, that failure of any labor organization
to comply with the periodic financial reports required by law and such
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) months after the
effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the cancellation of
union registration of such labor organization; (As amended by Section
16, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
k. The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their
positions as specifically provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in
a written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at
a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes
of the meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be
subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
representatives. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall
be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the organization;
l. The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is
responsible for the account of such organization or for the collection,
management, disbursement, custody or control of the funds, moneys
and other properties of the organization, shall render to the organization
and to its members a true and correct account of all moneys received
and paid by him since he assumed office or since the last day on which
he rendered such account, and of all bonds, securities and other
properties of the organization entrusted to his custody or under his
control. The rendering of such account shall be made:
1. At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the close of its
fiscal year;
2. At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the
majority of the members of the organization; and
3. Upon vacating his office.
The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy
thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor.
m. The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any
labor organization shall be open to inspection by any officer or member
thereof during office hours;
n. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon
the members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written
resolution of a majority of all the members in a general membership
meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the organization
shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members
present, the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees
and the recipient of such assessment or fees. The record shall be
attested to by the president.
o. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special
assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other
extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the
employee. The authorization should specifically state the amount,
purpose and beneficiary of the deduction; and
p. It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its
members on the provisions of its constitution and by-laws, collective
bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor relations system and all their
rights and obligations under existing labor laws.
For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable dues to
finance labor relations seminars and other labor education activities.
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a ground
for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from office,
whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the members of a union
or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to
the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported
violation to mete the appropriate penalty.
Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and conditions
of membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
ALLIANCE OF LABOR ORG VS. LAGUESMA
The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, and as applied in
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side8. Such
opportunity was denied petitioner in this case.
Under Section 1, Article II of our Constitution, "(n)o person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law . . ." and under Article 238 of
the Labor Code, "(t)he certificate of registration of any legitimate labor
organization, whether national or local, shall be cancelled by the Bureau if it has
reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor organization no longer
meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed."
The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out
the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses — as a rule
— its rights under the Labor Code. Under the circumstances, petitioner was
indisputably entitled to be heard before a judgment could be rendered
cancelling its certificate of registration. In David vs. Aguilizan9 , it was held that
a decision rendered without any hearing is null and void.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION-PROHIBITION AND REGULATION
Art. 269. Prohibition against aliens; exceptions. All aliens, natural or juridical, as
well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from engaging directly or
indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without prejudice to normal
contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized international labor
centers: Provided, however, That aliens working in the country with valid
permits issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, may exercise the
right to self-organization and join or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for purposes of collective bargaining: Provided, further, That said
aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to
Filipino workers. (As amended by Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
sArt. 270. Regulation of foreign assistance.
a. No foreign individual, organization or entity may give any donations,
grants or other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or
indirectly, to any labor organization, group of workers or any auxiliary
thereof, such as cooperatives, credit unions and institutions engaged in
research, education or communication, in relation to trade union
activities, without prior permission by the Secretary of Labor.
“Trade union activities” shall mean:
1. organization, formation and administration of labor
organization;
2. negotiation and administration of collective bargaining
agreements;
3. all forms of concerted union action;
4. organizing, managing, or assisting union conventions,
meetings, rallies, referenda, teach-ins, seminars, conferences
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
and institutes;
5. any form of participation or involvement in representation
proceedings, representation elections, consent elections, union
elections; and
6. other activities or actions analogous to the foregoing.
b. This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations, grants or other
forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, given directly or indirectly to any
employer or employer’s organization to support any activity or activities
affecting trade unions.
c. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate
and control the giving and receiving of such donations, grants, or other
forms of assistance, including the mandatory reporting of the amounts
of the donations or grants, the specific recipients thereof, the projects or
activities proposed to be supported, and their duration.
Art. 271. Applicability to farm tenants and rural workers. The provisions of this
Title pertaining to foreign organizations and activities shall be deemed applicable
likewise to all organizations of farm tenants, rural workers, and the like: Provided,
That in appropriate cases, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform shall exercise the
powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in the Secretary of Labor.
UNION MEMBER RELATIONS
UNION CONSTITUTION
UST FACULTY UNION VS BITONIO
Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine
Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form, join or assist
labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual
aid and protection. Whether employed for a definite period or not, any
employee shall be considered as such, beginning on his first day of service, for
purposes of membership in a labor union.
Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a
labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must, as a
rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps
to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied
in the unions constitution and bylaws. An employee who becomes a union
member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this
new status and becomes bound by the unions rules and regulations.
On joining a labor union, the constitution and by-laws become a part of the
members contract of membership under which he agrees to become bound by
the constitution and governing rules of the union so far as it is not inconsistent
with controlling principles of law. The constitution and by-laws of an
unincorporated trade union express the terms of a contract, which define the
privileges and rights secured to, and duties assumed by, those who have become
members. The agreement of a member on joining a union to abide by its laws
and comply with the will of the lawfully constituted majority does not require a
member to submit to the determination of the union any question involving his
personal rights.
The importance of a unions constitution and bylaws cannot be
overemphasized. They embody a covenant between a union and its members
and constitute the fundamental law governing the members rights and
obligations. As such, the unions constitution and bylaws should be upheld, as
long as they are not contrary to law, good morals or public policy.
We agree with the finding of Director Bitonio and Med-Arbiter Falconitin
that the October 4, 1996 election was tainted with irregularities.
NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP
HEIRS OF TEODORE CRUZ VS. CIR
For this Court ruled that the union's loss of interest in the case was no ground
for dismissing the case, since "the labor union as a body in reality has not so great
a material interest in the controversy as would prejudice it in the event of
dismissal. It is the twenty-one (21) members for whose benefit the ULP case was
prosecuted who stand to take tremendous losses" and suffer injustice.
Upholding the individual union members in their stand of vindicating their rights
acquired under the final judgment as against the union's legislative council's
resolution to dismiss the case.
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
The union may be considered but the agent of its members for the purpose of
securing for them fair and just wages and good working conditions and is subject
to the obligation of giving the members as its principals all information relevant
to union and labor matters entrusted to it.
ISSUES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE
SALUNGA VS. CIR
The closed shop and the union shop cause the admission requirements of trade
union to become affected with the public interest. Likewise, a closed shop, a
union shop, or maintenance of membership clauses cause the administration of
discipline by unions to be affected with the public interest.
it is well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified
applicants for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the
employer in discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of, an
employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership, without any
reasonable ground therefor.4 Needless to say, if said unions may be compelled
to admit new members, who have the requisite qualifications, with more reason
may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power when the employee
involved is a long standing union member, who, owing to provocations of union
officers, was impelled to tender his resignation, which he forthwith withdrew or
revoked. Surely, he may, at least, invoke the rights of those who seek admission
for the first time, and can not arbitrarily he denied readmission.
ISSUES ON ELECTION OF OFFICERS- QUALIFICATION, MANNER OF ELECTION,
TENURE AND COMPENSATION
Art 241: (c ) The members shall directly elect their officers, including those of
the national union or federation, to which they or their union is affiliated, by
secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. No qualification requirements for
candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in good
standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any other responsible
union officer shall furnish the Secretary of Labor and Employment with a list
of the newly-elected officers, together with the appointive officers or agents
who are entrusted with the handling of funds, within thirty (30) calendar days
after the election of officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list
of officers of the labor organization;
(f) No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any
position in the union;
(k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any compensation
other than the salaries and expenses due to their positions as specifically
provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a written resolution duly
authorized by a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting
duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the meeting and the list of
participants and ballots cast shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representatives. Any irregularities in the approval
of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the
organization;
MANDATORY ACTIVITY
Art 241 (o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special
assessments, attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees
may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an
individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The
authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of
the deduction
CBA NEGOTIATION
GALVADORES VS TRAJANO
EMPLOYEE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
ALDOVINO VS. NLRC
The right of URFA as a legitimate labor union to represent its members is expressly
guaranteed under Art. 242 of the Labor Code. This right, however, does not
deprive its individual members of their concomitant right to file a case in their own
names, nor of their right to withdraw from any case filed by the union in their
behalf. More importantly, the individual member may seasonably exercise his
option to withdraw from a case filed by his union if he does not want to be bound
thereby. In Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU), Inc. v. CIR, this Court
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
ruled that only those members of the petitioning union who did not signify their
intention to withdraw from the case before its trial and judgment on the merits
are bound by the outcome of the case. Since it has not been shown that Aldovino
and Pimentel withdrew from the case undergoing voluntary arbitration, it stands
to reason that both are bound by the decision rendered thereon. This obtaining,
there is no doubting the identity of parties between the arbitrated case and that
brought by petitioners before the Labor Arbiter. Hence we reiterate —
With respect to the aspect of identity of parties, it has been repeatedly stressed
that this requirement is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the
same parties which means that the parties in both cases need not be physically
identical provided that there is privity between the parties .
REMEDIES
KMP VS. TRAJANO
The repudiation of both private respondents to the highly sensitive position of
auditor at the October 4, 1982 election, is a convincing manifestation and
demonstration of the union membership's faith in the herein officers' leadership
on one hand and a clear condonation of an act they had allegedly committed.
By and large, the holding of the referendum in question has become moot and
academic. This is in line with Our ruling in Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva
Ecija, 106 Phil. 471, which We quote:
The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present
term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to
elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be
assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that
they disregarded or forgave Ms faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any.
It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically
overrule the will of the people.
UNION AFFILIATION: LOCAL AND PARENT RELATIONS
AFFILIATION: PURPOSE AND NATURE
SUGBUANON RURAL BANK VS. LAGUESMA
As to the second issue. One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under
Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of
collective bargaining. Having complied with the requirements of Art. 234, it is our
view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. Article 257 of the Labor Code
mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-
Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization.16Nothing is
said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the
management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union's registration. On this
score, petitioner's appeal was correctly dismissed.
Petitioner argues that giving due course to respondent union's petition for
certification election would violate the separation of unions doctrine.17 Note that the
petition was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization. It was not filed
by ALU. Nor was it filed by TUCP, which is a national labor federation of with which
respondent union is affiliated. Petitioner says that respondent union is a mere alter
ego of ALU. The records show nothing to this effect. What the records instead reveal
is that respondent union was initially assisted by ALU during its preliminary stages of
organization. A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a
larger national federation.18 Petitioner alleges that ALU seeks to represent both
respondent union and the rank-and-file union. Again, we find nothing in the records
to support this bare assertion.
EFFECT ON LEGAL PERSONALITY
ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER VS TORRES
It is immaterial whether the representation issue within AFW has been resolved with
finality or not. Said squabble could not possibly serve as a bar to any collective
bargaining since AFW is not the real party-in-interest to the talks; rather, the
negotiations were confined to petitioner and the local union SLMCEA which is
affiliated to AFW. Only the collective bargaining agent, the local union SLMCEA in this
case, possesses legal standing to negotiate with petitioner. A duly registered local
union affiliated with a national union or federation does not lose its legal personality
or independence.
(T)he locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain
an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of
labor and capital; and the association of the locals into the national union (as PAFLU)
was in furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities
capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. The essential
purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase
by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and
conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to
serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by
the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the
affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which
brought it into existence. (at p. 688; emphasis in the original.)
SUPERVISOR: RANK AND FILE UNION AFFILIATION
ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES INC VS LAGUESMA
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 and which national federation actively
represents its affiliates in collective bargaining negotiations with the same employer
of the supervisors and in the implementation of resulting collective bargaining
agreements.
Held: In terms of classification, however, while they are more closely identified with
the rank-and-file they are still not allowed to join the union of rank-and-file
employees.
We agree with the petitioner's contention that a conflict of interest may arise in the
areas of discipline, collective bargaining and strikes.
Members of the supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures
against their co-member rank-and-file employees.
In the area of bargaining, their interests cannot be considered identical. The needs
of one are different from those of the other. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the
national federation might influence the supervisors' union to conduct a sympathy
strike on the sole basis of affiliation.
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.
LOCAL UNION DISAFFILIATION
NATURE OF RIGHT OF DISAFFILIATION
VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION VS BLR
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. In
previous cases, it has been repeatedly held that a local union, being a separate and
voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the
freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association
"A disaffiliation does not disturb the enforceability and administration of a collective
agreement; it does not occasion a change of administrators of the contract nor even
an amendment of the provisions thereof." But nowhere in the record does it appear
that the contract entered into by the petitioner and ALUMETAL prohibits the
withdrawal of the former from the latter
RULES ON LEGALITY OF ACT OF DISAFFILIATION
ALEX FERRER VS NLRC
As earlier discussed, petitioners' alleged act of sowing disunity among the members
of the SAMAHAN could have been ventilated and threshed out through a grievance
procedure within the union itself. But resort to such procedure was not pursued.
What actually happened in this case was that some members, including petitioners,
tried to unseat the SAMAHAN leadership headed by Capitle due to the latter's
alleged inattention to petitioners' demands for the implementation of the P25-wage
increase which took effect on July 1, 1989. The intraunion controversy was such that
petitioners even requested the FFW to intervene to facilitate the enforcement of the
said wage increase (Petition, p. 54; p. 55, Rollo).
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Petitioners sought the help of the FEDLU only after they had learned of the
termination of their employment upon the recommendation of Capitle. Their alleged
application with federations other than the FFW (Labor Arbiter's Decision, pp. 4-5;
pp. 82-83, Rollo) can hardly be considered as disloyalty to the SAMAHAN, nor may
the filing of such applications denote that petitioners failed to maintain in good
standing their membership in the SAMAHAN. The SAMAHAN is a different entity
from FFW, the federation to which it belonged. Neither may it, be inferred that
petitioners sought disaffiliation from the FFW for petitioners had not formed a union
distinct from that of the SAMAHAN. Parenthetically, the right of a local union to
disaffiliate from a federation in the absence of any provision in the federation's
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union is legal (People's Industrial and
Commercial Employees and Worker's Org. (FFW) vs. People's Industrial and
Commercial Corp., 112 SCRA 440 (1982]). Such right is consistent with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association (Tropical Hut Employees Union-
CGW vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., 181 SCRA 173 [1990]).
APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT
Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy
and decision-making. The labor organization designated or selected by the majority
of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the
right at any time to present grievances to their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right,
subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the
establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly
affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers
may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the
workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the
majority of all employees in said establishment.
BELYCA CORP VS. CALLEJA
A proper bargaining unit maybe said to be a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which
the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
INTL SCHOOL ALLICANCE EDUCATORS VS. QUISIMBING
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all
or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the
employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties
of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law." The factors
in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the
employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such
as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and
working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective
bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status. The basic test of an
asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped
together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective
bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always
treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security
of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same
working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits
not granted to local-hires. These benefits, such as housing, transportation,
shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are reasonably related
to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the
latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not
assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.
FACTORS- UNIT DETERMINATION
IN GENERAL: UP VS FERRER CALLEJA
The Court further explained that "(t)he test of the grouping is community or mutuality
of interests. And this is so because 'the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best
assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights' (Rothenberg
on Labor Relations, 490)." Hence, in that case, the Court upheld the trial court's
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
conclusion that two separate bargaining units should be formed, one consisting of
regular and permanent employees and another consisting of casual laborers or
stevedores.
Applying the same "community or mutuality of interests" test, but resulting in the
formation of only one collective bargaining units is the case of National Association
of Free Trade Unions vs. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union-
United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils., G.R. No. 79526, December 21,
1990, 192 SCRA 598. In said case, the Court ordered the formation of a single
bargaining unit consisting of the Sawmill Division in Butuan City and the Logging
Division in Zapanta Valley, Kitcharao, Agusan Norte of the Mainit Lumber
Development Company. The Court reasoned:
Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of
the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh
with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that
the company needs them both. There may be difference as to the
nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not
enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the rank-and-
file non-academic personnel, and the second, of the rank-and-file academic
employees, is the set-up that will best assure to all the employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights. These special circumstances, i.e., the dichotomy of
interests and concerns as well as the dissimilarity in the nature and conditions of work,
wages and compensation between the academic and non-academic personnel, bring
the case at bar within the exception contemplated in Section 9 of Executive Order No.
180.
TEST TO DETERMINE BARGAINING UNIT
SMC VS. LAGUESMA
A bargaining unit is a "group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer,
indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the law." 5
The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit
are: (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); 6 (2) affinity and unity of the
employees' interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior
collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status
Indeed, the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. The employees
sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have substantial
mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the
type of work they perform.
In the case at bench, respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in
the various Magnolia sales offices in northern Luzon. There is similarity of
employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area are
covered. They have the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar
compensation and working conditions. The commonality of interest among the sales
personnel in the north Luzon sales area cannot be gainsaid. In fact, in the
certification election held on November 24, 1990, the employees concerned
accepted respondent union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Clearly, they have
expressed their desire to be one.
Petitioner cannot insist that each of the sales office of Magnolia should constitute
only one bargaining unit. What greatly militates against this position is the meager
number of sales personnel in each of the Magnolia sales office in northern Luzon.
Even the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent union in the entire
north Luzon sales area consists only of approximately
fifty-five (55) employees. Surely, it would not be for the best interest of these
employees if they would further be fractionalized. The adage "there is strength in
number" is the very rationale underlying the formation of a labor union.
UNIT SEVERANCE AND GLOBE DOCTRINE
MECHANICAL DEPATMENT LABOR UNION VS CIR
In view of its findings and the history of "union representation" in the railway
company, indicating that bargaining units had been formed through separation of
new units from existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers' desire to
have their own representatives, and relying on the "Globe doctrine" (Globe Machine
& Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294) applied in Democratic Labor Union vs. Cebu
Stevedoring Co., L-10321, 28 February 1958, Judge Martinez held that the
employees in the Caloocan Shops should be given a chance to vote on whether their
group should be separated from that represented by the Mechanical Department
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
Labor Union, and ordered a plebiscite held for the purpose. The ruling was sustained
by the Court en banc; wherefore, the Mechanical Department Labor Union appealed
to this Court questioning the applicability under the circumstances of the "Globe
doctrine" of considering the will of the employees in determining what union should
represent them.
Technically, this appeal is premature, since the result of the ordered plebiscite
among the workers of the Caloocan shops may be adverse to the formation of a
separate unit, in which event, as stated in the appealed order, all questions raised in
this case would be rendered moot and academic. Apparently, however, the
appellant Mechanical Department Labor Union takes it for granted that the
plebiscite would favor separation.
SIZE OF UNIT AND EFFECT ON SELF-ORGANIZATION
FILOIL REFINERY CORP VS FILOIL SUPERVISORY
If indeed the supervisor is absolutely undistinguishable from management, then he
would be beyond removal or dismissal, for as respondent association counters, "how
can management remove or dismiss itself?"
As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG & P Co. of Manila, Inc. vs.
C.I.R.,8 section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act "explicitly provides that "employees" —
and this term includes supervisors — "shall have the right to self-organization, and
to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining through representations of their own choosing and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
or protection" and that "individuals employed as supervisors ... may form separate
organizations of their own". Indeed, it is well settled that "in relation to his
employer," a foreman or supervisor "is an employee within the meaning of the Act"
... For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities and any
discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an unfair labor practice."
So with petitioner's thesis that "(T)o then give supervisors the right to compel
employers to bargain would in effect align labor and management together against
stockholders and bondholders (capital) and inexorably tilt the balance of power in
favor of these hitherto confliction forces. This is contrary to the nature and
philosophy of free enterprise." 11 This further serves to point up the validity and
rationale of the Industrial Peace Act's provision, since the supervisors and
confidential employees, even though they may exercise the prerogatives of
management as regards the rank and file employees are indeed employees in
relation to their employer, the company which is owned by the "stockholders and
bondholders (capital)" in petitioner's own words, and should therefore be entitled
under the law to bargain collectively with the top management with respect to their
terms and conditions of employment.
SUPERVISING UNIT
NEGROS ORIENTAL ELECTRIC CORP VS. DOLE
The second argument posited by petitioner is also without merit. Petitioner invokes
Article 245 of the Labor Code and the ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. vs.
Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union6 which declare the ineligibility of
managerial or supervisory employees to join any labor organization consisting of
rank and file employees for the reason that the concerns which involve either group
"are normally disparate and contradictory". Petitioner claims that it challenged the
composition of the union at the earliest possible time after the decision of the Med-
Arbiter was set aside by the DOLE; and that the list of the names of supervisory or
confidential employees was submitted with the petition for certiorari filed in the
Court of Appeals, which did not consider the same. Petitioner further argues that
the failure of the Secretary of Labor and the Court of Appeals to resolve this question
constituted a denial of its right to due process
"On the fourth ground, in the cited case of Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union, 268
SCRA 573, the employer, since the beginning opposed the petition
indicating the specific names of the supervisory employees and their
respective job descriptions. In the instant case, movant not only belatedly
raised the issue but miserably failed to support the same. Hence, between
the belated and bare allegation of movant that "there are supervisory and
confidential employees in the union" vis-à-vis the open and repeated
declaration under oath of the union members in the minutes of their
organizational meeting and the ratification of their Constitution and By-
Laws that they are rank and file employees, we are inclined to give more
credence to the latter. Again, in Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc.
vs. Ferrer-Calleja, supra, the Supreme Court held:
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
'the Court upholds the findings of said public respondent that no
persuasive evidence has been presented to show that two of the
signatories in the petition for certification election are managerial
employees who under the law are disqualified from pursuing union
activities.'
In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence to show that there are
indeed supervisory and confidential employees in appellant union who
under the law are disqualified to join the same."8
The above finding was correctly upheld by the Court of Appeals, and we find no
cogent basis to reverse the same. Factual issues are not a proper subject for
certiorari which is limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
1âwphi1.nêt
Indeed, the Court of Appeals cannot be expected to go over the list of alleged
supervisory employees attached to the petition before it and to pass judgment in
the first instance on the nature of the functions of each employee on the basis of
the job description pertaining to him. As appropriately observed by the said court,
the determination of such factual issues is vested in the appropriate Regional Office
of the Department of Labor and Employment and pursuant to the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, the Court should refrain from resolving such controversies. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with
an administrative body of special competence.
EFFECT OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS
GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR VS BLR
Thus, it can be readily seen from the above findings of the Bureau of Labor Relations
that the members of private respondent are not managerial employees as claimed
by petitioners but merely considered as rank-and-file employees who have every
right to self-organization or to be heard through a duly certified collective bargaining
union. The Supervisory power of the members of private respondent union consists
merely in recommending as to what managerial actions to take in disciplinary cases.
These members of private respondent union do not fit the definition of managerial
employees which We laid down in the case of Bulletin Publishing Corporation v.
Sanchez (144 SCRA 628). These members of private respondent union are therefore
not prohibited from forming their own collective bargaining unit since it has not been
shown by petitioner that "the responsibilities (of these monthly-paid-employees)
inherently require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment as
supervisors" or that "they possess the power and authority to lay down or exercise
management policies." Similarly, We held in the same case that "Members of
supervisory unions who do not fall within the definition of managerial employees
shall become eligible to join or assist the rank-and-file labor organization, and if none
exists, to form or assist in the forming of such rank-and-file organizations."cralaw
virtua1aw libr
From the beginning of the existence in 1963 of a bargaining unit for the employees
up to the present, petitioner had sought to indiscriminately suppress the members
of the private respondent’s right to self-organization provided for by law. Petitioner,
in justification of its action, maintained that the exclusion of the members of the
private respondent from the bargaining union of the rank-and-file or from forming
their own union was agreed upon by petitioner corporation with the previous
bargaining representatives namely: the General "Rubber Workers Union-PTGWO,
the General Workers Union-NAFLU and the General Rubber Workers Union
(independent). Such posture has no leg to stand on. It has not been shown that
private respondent was privy to this agreement. And even if it were so, it can never
bind subsequent federations and unions particularly private respondent-union
because it is a curtailment of the right to self-organization guaranteed by the labor
laws. However, to prevent any difficulty and to avoid confusion to all concerned and,
more importantly, to fulfill the policy of the New Labor Code as well as to be
consistent with Our ruling in the Bulletin case, supra, the monthly-paid rank-and-file
employees should be allowed to join the union of the daily-paid-rank-and-file
employees of petitioner so that they can also avail of the CBA benefits or to form their
own rank-and-file union, without prejudice to the certification election that has been
ordered.
DETERMINING AGENCY
Art. 226. Bureau of Labor Relations. The Bureau of Labor Relations and the
Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor,
shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or
upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union
conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation
of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
LLAW 2- ATTY. DAN GUTZ (MIDTERMS S.Y 2019, SECOND SEM)
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before
it, subject to extension by agreement of the parties

Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in

policy and decision-making. The labor organization designated or selected
by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group
of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their
employer.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the
right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making
processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said
processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this
purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils:
Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-
management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all
employees in said establishment.

AGENCY AND FINALITY OF ORDER

FILOIL

Petitioner's contentions are untenable, prescinding from the fact of its failure to
appeal in due course respondent court's en banc resolution of September 7, 1965
upholding the right of the supervisors and confidential employees to organize
respondent association and to compel petitioner to negotiate and bargain
collectively with it. Petitioner's argument that since supervisors form part of
management, to allow them to bargain collectively would be tantamount to
management bargaining with itself may be a well-turned phrase but ignores the dual
status of a supervisor as a representative of management and as an employee.

If indeed the supervisor is absolutely undistinguishable from management, then he

would be beyond removal or dismissal, for as respondent association counters, "how
can management remove or dismiss itself?"