Jisscor Independent Union v.

Torres 221 SCRA 699 Facts: JISSCOR Independent Union (JIU) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Jacinto Iron and Steels Corporation (JISSCOR) before the DOLE on June 27, 1990. By agreement, JIU, the intervenor Samahang Manggagawa ng JISSCOR-ALU (SMJ-ALU) and the JISSCOR management, an Order was issued setting the certification election. However, on the date, instead of election, another pre-election conference was held and another agreement was entered providing that the election would conducted and that the mandatory 5 days posting is waived by agreement of the parties. As a result of the election, SMJ-ALU won and JIU came second. JIU registered a protest in the minutes of the election stating that they filed a protest the grounds of using visor, emblem. JIU filed a formal protest before the DOLE on the grounds of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. election was with no compliance with mandatory posting of notice of election; lack of posting misled the voters of the manner of voting; escorting of workers by SMJ-ALU from place to election registration; forcing the workers to vote for SMJ-ALU by posting a bit streamer to vote SMJ-ALU; and forcing the workers to vote for SMJ-ALU by wearing sunvisors and pins. Ruling: Petition has no merit. Sec. 3 of the Rule VI of the IRR provides that the grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. JIU only protested against the use of emblem, visor, pin. JIU is estopped from raising the issue of non-posting of the notice of the certification election for it signed an agreement with the private respondent to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the grounds of public policy, for dealing good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against the own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. Topic: Grounds/Allegations Militante v. NLRC 246 scra 365 Facts: Golden Taxi Employees & Wokers Union ANGLO (Union) represented by its President, Serrano, filed a case against Golden Taxi Cab Co., (Company) for illegal lock-out, violation of BP Blg. 130, unfair labor practice and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and atty.s fees. In its decision, Labor Arbiter found that the closure of the company was illegal and was ordered to pay members of the union a separation pay. On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and in lieu, the company was directed to pay as financial assistance the workers named in the list attached to its decision. Another three (3) complaints was separately filed by Militante, Salonga and Tejada against the company for illegal lock out, illegal dismissal and others. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata and prescription arguing that the NLRC decision barred these subsequent complaints. The Labor Arbiter dismissed these 3 consolidated cases on the

Med-Arbiter declared that the certification election null and void. On appeal, SMJ-ALU prayed that they be declared the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. A decision was rendered by the Secretary of Labor granting the petition. SMJ-ALU was declared the sole & exclusive bargaining agent of the JISSCOR. Thus, this petition for certiorari was filed. Issue: Whether the DOLE committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in certifying SMJ-ALU as the sole & exclusive bargaining agent of the company.

ground of bar by prior judgment. On appeal, the case was dismissed for lack of merit. Issue: Whether the petitioners causes of action are barred by the prior final judgment. Ruling: The legal conclusion of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC on the binding effect of the judgment on petitioners finds support in Article 255 of the Code which states that: Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision making the labor organization in policy and decision making 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 Inasmuch as the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the consent election, petitioners cannot now claim that they were not parties in the first case filed by the Union. Hence, all the requisites of res judicata being present, said principle should be made to apply, thus barring any subsequent action such as the consolidated cases subject of this petition. Note: When this case was first filed, all the workers of company were complainants until the case was decided in complainants favor, but when the herein mentioned case was elevated on appeal the complainants in this instant case were no longer included. Case dismissed without prejudice to the filing of the unresolved money claims (e.g. nonremittance of SSS deduction and deductions for burial benefits, non-payment of holiday pay and 13th month pay) Topic: Majority Union.

Relations (CIR) alleging that the total number of employees in the company was 583 and that there were 2 labor organizations which represented the employees to wit; Buklod ng Saulog Transit (Union) and Tranist Employees Union (PFL). On December 1953, a CBA was entered between the Union and company. Having acquired juridical entity, the Union entered into a contract with the company covering the well-being of the members the union of which the respondents are still members. The court ordered that a certification election be held. The purpose of which is to determine of which of these 2 unions will represent them in dealings as regards the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment as the first contract does not touch in substantial terms but seeks to establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers, conductors and inspectors who are members of Union. Issue: Whether the incomplete agreement between the company and union bar a certification election. Ruling: The provisions of Sec. 13 of RA 875 contemplate a situation not only where there had been no agreement entered into by and between employees or laborers and employer or management as to terms and conditions of employment, but also where there had been an agreement that leaves out many or some matters on which the parties should have stipulated, if the collective bargaining agreement is to achieve its purpose and aim industrial peace. The court ruled that the collective bargaining agreement entered into by the company and union on July 15, 1953 is no bar to a certification election at the instance of at least 10 per cent of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit pursuant to Sec. 12 pars. (a) (b) and (c ) of RA 875. Topic: Incomplete Contract

Buklod ng Saulog Transit v. Casalla 267 scra 303 Facts: 65 employees of Saulog Transit, Inc. (Company) filed a petition for a certification election before the Court of Industrial