Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

FACTORS THAT DETERMINE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

1. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS VS. QUISUMBING G.R. NO. 128845, JUNE 1, 2000 FACTS: International School (IS) pays its teachers who are hired from abroad, or foreign-hires, a higher salary than its local-hires, whether the latter are Filipino or not (most are Filipino, but some are American). It justifies this under the dislocation factor! " that foreigners must be gi#en a higher salary both to attract them to teach here, and to compensate them for the $significant economic disad#antages% in#ol#ed in coming here. &hen negotiations for a new collecti#e bargaining agreement were held on 'une ())*, petitioner International School Alliance of +ducators, ,a legitimate labor union and the collecti#e bargaining representati#e of all faculty members, of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. -n September ., ())*, petitioner filed a notice of stri/e. 0he failure of the 1ational 2onciliation and 3ediation 4oard to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the 5epartment of 6abor and +mployment (5-6+) to assume jurisdiction o#er the dispute. -n 'une (7, ())8, the 5-6+ Acting Secretary, 2rescenciano 4. 0rajano, issued an -rder resol#ing the parity and representation issues in fa#or of the School. 0hen 5-6+ Secretary 6eonardo A. 9uisumbing subse:uently denied petitioner;s motion for reconsideration in an -rder dated 3arch (), ()).. <etitioner now see/s relief in this 2ourt. It claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination. ISSUES: (. &hether or not there is salary discrimination between the foreign-hires and local-hires= >. &hether or not foreign-hires belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires= HELD: (. ?es. 0he 2onstitution specifically pro#ides that labor is entitled to ,humane conditions of wor/., 0hese conditions are not restricted to the physical wor/place - the factory, the office or the field - but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. 0he 2onstitution also directs the State to promote ,e:uality of employment opportunities for all., Similarly, the 6abor 2ode pro#ides that the State shall ,ensure e:ual wor/ opportunities regardless of se@, race or creed., It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these pro#isions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure e:ual employment

opportunities, closes its eyes to une:ual and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. 5iscrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the 6abor 2ode. Article (A*, for e@ample, prohibits and penaliBes the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for wor/ of e:ual #alue. Article >CD declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organiBation. >. 1o. A bargaining unit is ,a group of employees of a gi#en employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with e:uity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to ser#e the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collecti#e bargaining pro#isions of the law., 0he factors in determining the appropriate collecti#e bargaining unit are (() the will of the employees (Elobe 5octrine)F (>) affinity and unity of the employees; interest, such as substantial similarity of wor/ and duties, or similarity of compensation and wor/ing conditions (Substantial 3utual Interests Gule)F (A) prior collecti#e bargaining historyF and (C) similarity of employment status. 0he 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 e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights. It does not appear that foreign-hires ha#e indicated their intention to be grouped together with localhires for purposes of collecti#e bargaining. 0he collecti#e bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups were always treated separately. Foreign-hires ha#e limited tenureF local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the same wor/ing conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires. 0hese benefits, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, ta@es, and home lea#e tra#el allowance, are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the e@clusion of the former from the latter. 0o include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the e@ercise of their respecti#e collecti#e bargaining rights. Hence, the S2 granted the petition and re#ersed and set aside the decision of the Secretary of 6abor. 2. BEL CA CORPORATION VS. FERRER!CALLEJA 1"8

SCRA 184
FACTS: 4elyca 2orporation, the petitioner herein, is a duly organiBed, registered and e@isting corporation engaged in the business of poultry raising, piggery and planting of agricultural crops such as corn, coffee and #arious

#egetables which employs appro@imately >7* ran/ and file employeesIwor/ers, -n 'une A, ()D8, pri#ate respondent Associated 6abor Jnion (A6J)-0J2<, a legitimate labor organiBation duly registered with the 3inistry of 6abor and +mployment, filed with the Gegional -ffice of the 3inistry of 6abor and +mployment at 2agayan de -ro 2ity, a petition for direct certification as the sole and e@clusi#e bargaining agent of all the ran/ and file employeesIwor/ers of 4elyca. 0he collecti#e bargaining unit sought in the petition, or in case of doubt of the union;s majority representation, for the issuance of an order authoriBing the immediate holding of a certification election. Although the case was scheduled for hearing at least three times, no amicable settlement was reached by the parties. 5uring the scheduled hearing of 'uly A(, ()D8 they, howe#er, agreed to submit simultaneously their respecti#e position papers on or before August ((, ()D8. 4ut petitioner contends that the bargaining unit must include all the wor/ers in its integrated business concerns ranging from piggery, poultry, to supermarts and cinemas so as not to split an otherwise single bargaining unit into fragmented bargaining units. 0he 6abor Arbiter granted the certification election sought for by petitioner union in his order dated August (D, ()D8. -n February C, ()D., respondent employer 4elyca 2orporation, appealed the order of the 6abor Arbiter to the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations in 3anila which denied the appeal and the motion for reconsideration. 0hus, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction see/ing to annul or to set aside the resolution of the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations dated 1o#ember >C, ()D8 and denying the appeal, and the 4ureau;s resolution dated 'anuary (A, ()D. denying petitioner;s motion for reconsideration. ISSUES: (. &hether or not the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate bargaining unit= >. &hether or not the statutory re:uirement of A7K (now >7K) of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, as/ing for a certification election had been strictly complied with= HELD: (. 1o. 0he 6abor 2ode does not specifically define what constitutes an appropriate collecti#e bargaining unit. Article >*8 of the 2ode pro#idesL Art. 256. Exclusive bargaining representative.The labor organization designated or selected by the majority o the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be exclusive representative o the employees in such unit or the purpose o collective bargaining. !o"ever# an individual employee or group o employee shall have the

right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Among the factors considered in 5emocratic 6abor Association #. 2ebu Ste#edoring 2o. Inc. ((7A <hil ((7A M()*DN) areL ,(() will of employees (Elobe 5octrine)F (>) affinity and unity of employee;s interest, such as substantial similarity of wor/ and duties or similarity of compensation and wor/ing conditionsF (A) prior collecti#e bargaining historyF and (C) employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary employees,. Jnder the circumstances of that case, the 2ourt stressed the importance of the fourth factor and sustained the trial court;s conclusion that two separate bargaining units should be formed in dealing with respondent company, one consisting of regular and permanent employees and another consisting of casual laborers or ste#edores. -therwise stated, temporary employees should be treated separately from permanent employees. 4ut more importantly, this 2ourt laid down the test of proper grouping, which is community and mutuality of interest. Among others, the noted difference areL their wor/ing conditions, hours of wor/, rates of pay, including the categories of their positions and employment status. As stated by petitioner corporation in its position paper, due to the nature of the business in which its li#estoc/-agro di#ision is engaged #ery few of its employees in the di#ision are permanent, the o#erwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees. 5efinitely, they ha#e #ery little in common with the employees of the supermarts and cinemas. 0o lump all the employees of petitioner in its integrated business concerns cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of interest. Jndeniably, the ran/ and file employees of the li#estoc/-agro di#ision fully constitute a bargaining unit that satisfies both re:uirements of classification according to employment status and of the substantial similarity of wor/ and duties which will ultimately assure its members the e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights. >. ?es. Jnder Art. >*. of the 6abor 2ode once the statutory re:uirement is met, the 5irector of 6abor Gelations has no choice but to call a certification election (Atlas Free &or/ers Jnion AF&J <SS6J 6ocal #. 1oriel, (7C S2GA *8* M()D(NF Oismico Industrial &or/ers Association (OI&A) #. 1oriel, (A( S2GA *8) M()DCN) It becomes in the language of the 1ew 6abor 2ode ,3andatory for the 4ureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representati#e of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the e@clusi#e bargaining representati#e of all employees in the unit., (Federacion -brera de la Industria 0aba:uera y -tros 0rabajadores de Filipinas #. 1oriel, .> S2GA >C M().8NF Papisanan 1g 3ga 3anggagawa #. 1oriel, .. S2GA C(C M()..N)F more so when there is no e@isting collecti#e bargaining agreement.

(Samahang 3anggagawa 1g <acific 3ills, Inc. #. 1oriel, (AC S2GA (*> M()D*N)F and there has not been a certification election in the company for the past three years (<6J3 Federation of Industrial and Agrarian &or/ers #. 1oriel, (() S2GA >)) M()D>N) as in the instant case. It is significant to note that (>C employees out of the >7* employees of the 4elyca 2orporation ha#e e@pressed their written consent to the certification election or more than a majority of the ran/ and file employees and wor/ersF much more than the re:uired A7K and o#er and abo#e the present re:uirement of >7K by +@ecuti#e -rder 1o. ((( issued on 5ecember >C, ()D7 and applicable only to unorganiBed establishments under Art. >*., of the 6abor 2ode, to which the 4+6?2A 2orporation belong (Ass. 0rade Jnions (A0J) #. 0rajano, E.G. 1o. .*A>(, 'une >7, ()DD).) Finally, as a general rule, a certification election is the sole concern of the wor/ers. 0he only e@ception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Art. >*) of the 6abor 2ode because the latter was re:uested to bargain collecti#ely. 4ut thereafter the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. 0he employer becomes merely a bystander (0rade Jnion of the <hil. and Allied Ser#ices (0J<AS) #. 0rajano, (>7 S2GA 8C M()DAN). 0here is no showing that the instant case falls under the abo#e mentioned e@ception. Howe#er, it will be noted that petitioner corporation from the outset has acti#ely participated and consistently ta/en the position of ad#ersary in the petition for direct certification as the sole and e@clusi#e bargaining representati#e andIor certification election filed by respondent Associated 6abor Jnions (A6J)-0J2< to the e@tent of filing this petition for certiorari in this 2ourt. 2onsidering that a petition for certification election is not a litigation but a mere in#estigation of a non-ad#ersary character to determining the bargaining unit to represent the employees (6O1 <ictures, Inc. #. <hilippine 3usicians Euild). Hence, the petition before the S2 is 5IS3ISS+5 for lac/ of merit, the resolution of the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations dated 1o#. >C, ()D8 is AFFIG3+5F and the temporary restraining order issued by the 2ourt on 3arch C, ()D. is 6IF0+5 permanently.

AG0I26+ RIO $%&AT'() (* A+&EE,E)T Sec. (. This Agreement "hich shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-in-interest# shall become e ective and shall remain in orce and e ect until .une /0# 1222. Sec. >. 'n accordance "ith Article 25/-A o the 3abor 4ode as amended# the term o this Agreement inso ar as the representation aspect is concerned# shall be or ive 556 years rom .uly 1# 1272 to .une /0# 1228. !ence# the reedom period or purposes o such representation shall be sixty 5606 days prior to .une /0# 1228. Sec. A. 9ixty 5606 days prior to .une /0# 1222 either party may initiate negotiations o all provisions o this Agreement# except inso ar as the representation aspect is concerned. ' no agreement is reached in such negotiations# this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in orce up to the time a subse:uent agreement is reached by the parties. 3eanwhile, effecti#e -ctober (, ())(, 3agnolia and Feeds and 6i#estoc/ 5i#ision were spun-off and became two separate and distinct corporationsL 3agnolia 2orporation (3agnolia) and San 3iguel Foods, Inc. (S3FI). 1otwithstanding the spin-offs, the 24A remained in force and effect. After 'une A7, ())>, the 24A was renegotiated in accordance with the terms of the 24A and Article >*A-A of the 6abor 2ode. 1egotiations started sometime in 'uly, ())> with the two parties submitting their respecti#e proposals and counterproposals. 5uring the negotiations, the petitioner-union insisted that the bargaining unit of S32 should still include the employees of the spun-off corporationsL 3agnolia and S3FIF and that the renegotiated terms of the 24A shall be effecti#e only for the remaining period of two years or until 'une A7, ())C. S32, on the other hand, contended that the membersIemployees who had mo#ed to 3agnolia and S3FI, automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit at the S32. Furthermore, the 24A should be effecti#e for three years in accordance with Art. >*A-A of the 6abor 2ode. Jnable to agree on these issues with respect to the bargaining unit and duration of the 24A, petitioner-union declared a deadloc/ on September >), ())7. (1otice of stri/eSSecretary assumed jurisdiction) Secretary!s decisionL the 24A shall be effecti#e for the period of A years from 'une A7, ())>F and that such 24A shall co#er only the employees of S32 and not of 3agnolia and S3FI. ISSUES: () &hether or not the duration of the renegotiated terms of the 24A is to be effecti#e for three years of for only two

#. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLO EES UNION VS. CONFESOR G.R. NO. 1112"2, SEPT. 1$, 1$$"
FACTS: -n 'une >D, ())7, petitioner-union San 3iguel 2orporation +mployees Jnion Q <0E&- entered into a 24A with pri#ate respondent San 3iguel 2orporation (S32) to ta/e effect upon the e@piration of the pre#ious 24A or on 'une A7, ()D). 0his 24A pro#ided, among others, thatL

yearsF and >) &hether or not the bargaining unit of S32 includes also the employees of the 3agnolia and S3FI. HELD: &e agree with the Secretary of 6abor. <ertinent to the first issue is Art. >*A-A of the 6abor 2ode as amended which readsL Art. >*A-A. Terms o a 4;A. Q Any 4;A that the parties may enter into shall# inso ar as the representation aspect is concerned# be or a term o 5 years. 1o petition :uestioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the 5epartment of 6abor and +mployment outside of the si@ty-day period immediately before the date of e@piry of such fi#e year term of the 24A. All other provisions o the 4;A shall be renegotiated not later than / years a ter its execution. Any agreement on such other pro#isions of the 24A entered into within 8 months from the date of e@piry of the term of such other pro#isions as fi@ed in such 24A, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond si@ months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroacti#ity thereof. In case of a deadloc/ in the renegotiation of the 24A, the parties may e@ercise their rights under this 2ode. (+mphasis supplied.) 0he $representation aspect% refers to the identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the 24A as the e@clusi#e bargaining representati#e of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned. $All other pro#isions% simply refers to the rest of the 24A, economic as well as noneconomic pro#isions, e@cept representation. 0he law is clear and definite on the duration of the 24A insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, but is :uite ambiguous with the terms of the other pro#isions of the 24A. It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the 2ourt must ascertain the legislati#e intent for the purpose of gi#ing effect to any statute. -b#iously, the framers of the law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability by ha#ing both management and labor wor/ harmoniously together without any disturbance. 0hus, no outside union can enter the establishment within * years and challenge the status of the incumbent union as the e@clusi#e bargaining agent. 6i/ewise, the terms and conditions of employment (economic and non-economic) can not be :uestioned by the employers or employees during the period of effecti#ity of the 24A. 0he 24A is a contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and conditions of the agreement. 1otably, the framers of the law did not gi#e a fi@ed term as to the effecti#ity of the terms and conditions of employment. It can be gleaned from their discussions that it was left to the parties to fi@ the period. 0he issue as to the term of the non-representation pro#isions of the 24A need not belaboured. 0he parties,

by mutual agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract with a term of three (A) years or one which does not coincide with the said *-year term, and said agreement is ratified by majority of the members in the bargaining unit, the subject contract is #alid and legal and therefore, binds the contracting parties. 0hus, we do not find any gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of 6abor in ruling that the effecti#ity of the renegotiated terms of the 24A shall be for A years. II. Jndeniably, the transformation of the companies was a management prerogati#e and business judgment which the courts can not loo/ into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals. 1either can we impute any bad faith on the part of S32 so as to justify the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate #eil.18 +#er mindful of the employees! interests, management has assured the concerned employees that they will be absorbed by the new corporations without loss of tenure and retaining their present pay and benefits according to the e@isting 24As. 0hey were ad#ised that upon the e@piration of the 24As, new agreements will be negotiated between the management of the new corporations and the bargaining representati#es of the employees concerned. Indubitably, therefore, 3agnolia and S3FI became distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. 0hus, they can not belong to a single bargaining unit. 3oreo#er, in determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. 0he employees sought to be represented by the collecti#e bargaining agent must ha#e substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and wor/ing conditions as e#inced by the type of wor/ they performed. 22 2onsidering the spin-offs, the companies would conse:uently ha#e their respecti#e and distincti#e concerns in terms of the nature of wor/, wages, hours of wor/ and other conditions of employment. Interests of employees in the different companies perforce differ. 0he nature of their products and scales of business may re:uire different s/ills which must necessarily be commensurated by different compensation pac/ages. 0he different companies may ha#e different #olumes of wor/ and different wor/ing conditions. For such reason, the employees of the different companies see the need to group themsel#es together and organiBe themsel#es into distincti#e and different groups. It would then be best to ha#e separate bargaining units for the different companies where the employees can bargain separately according to their needs and according to their own wor/ing conditions. &H+G+F-G+, the petition is 5IS3ISS+5 for lac/ of merit. 4. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION VS. LAGUESMA G.R. NO. 100485, SEPTEMBER 21, 1$$4

FACTS: -n 'une C, ())7, the 1orth 6uBon 3agnolia Sales 6abor Jnion (respondent union for bre#ity) filed with the 5epartment of 6abor a petition for certification election among all the regular sales personnel of 3agnolia 5airy <roducts in the 1orth 6uBon Sales Area. <etitioner opposed the petition and :uestioned the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent union. It claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to ha#e aseparate bargaining unit or each sales o ice. 0he petition was heard on 1o#ember ), ())7. 6ater, the lawyer of the petitioner withdrew his opposition to a certification election and agreed to consider all the sales o ices in northern 3uzon as one bargaining unit. At the pre-election conference, the parties agreed inter alia, on the date, time and place of the consent election. Gespondent union won the election held on 1o#ember >C, ())7. In an -rder dated 5ecember A, ())7, 3ediatorArbiter 4enalfre '. Ealang certified respondent union as the sole and e@clusi#e bargaining agent for all the regular sales personnel in all the sales offices of 3agnolia 5airy <roducts in the 1orth 6uBon Sales Area. <etitioner appealed to the Secretary of 6abor. In a Gesolution dated 3arch (), ())(, public respondent, by authority of the Secretary of 6abor, denied S32;s appeal and affirmed the -rder of the 3ed- Arbiter. Hence this petition for certiorari. ISSUES: (() whether or not respondent union represents an appropriate bargaining unit, and (>) whether or not petitioner is bound by its lawyer;s act of agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the north 6uBon sales area as one bargaining unit. HELD: (. ?es. A bargaining unit is a ,group of employees of a gi#en employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with e:uity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to ser#e the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collecti#e bargaining pro#isions of the law., 0he fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collecti#e bargaining unit areL (() the will of the employees (Elobe 5octrine)F (>) affinity and unity of the employees; interest, such as substantial similarity of wor/ and duties, or similarity of compensation and wor/ing conditions (Substantial 3utual Interests Gule)F (A) prior collecti#e bargaining historyF and (C) similarity of employment status. In the case at bench, respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the #arious 3agnolia sales offices in northern 6uBon. 0here is similarity of employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the north 6uBon area are co#ered. 0hey ha#e the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar

compensation and wor/ing conditions. <etitioner cannot insist that each of the sales office of 3agnolia should constitute only one bargaining unit. &hat greatly militates against this position is the meager number o sales personnel in each o the ,agnolia sales o ice in northern 3uzon. +#en the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent union in the entire north 6uBon sales area consists only of appro@imately i ty- ive (**) employees. Surely, it would not be for the best interest of these employees if they would further be fractionaliBed. 0he adage ,there is strength in number, is the #ery rationale underlying the formation of a labor union. >. ?es. the collecti#e bargaining history of a company is not decisi#e of what should comprise the collecti#e bargaining unit. Insofar as the alleged ,mista/e, of the substitute lawyer is concerned, we find that this mista/e was the direct result of the negligence of petitioner;s lawyers. It will be noted that Atty. -na was under the super#ision of two (>) other lawyers, Attys. 'acinto de la Gosa, 'r. and Eeorge 2. 1ograles. 0here is nothing in the records to show that these two (>) counsels were li/ewise una#ailable at that time. Instead of deferring the hearing, petitioner;s counsels chose to proceed therewith. Indeed, prudence dictates that, in such case, the lawyers allegedly acti#ely in#ol#ed in S32;s labor case should ha#e ade:uately and sufficiently briefed the substitute lawyer with respect to the matters in#ol#ed in the case and the specific limits of his authority. Jnfortunately, this was not done in this case. 0he negligence of its lawyers binds petitioner. As held by this 2ourt in the case of <illa &hecar ;us v. $e la 4ruzL . . . As a general rule, a client is bound by the mista/es of his counsel. -nly when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an e@ception thereto be called for. In the case at bench, petitioner insists that each of the sales offices in northern 6uBon should be considered as a separate bargaining unit for negotiations would be more e@peditious. <etitioner ob#iously chooses to follow the path of least resistance. It is not, howe#er, the con#enience of the employer that constitutes the determinati#e factor in forming an appropriate bargaining unit. +:ually, if not more important, is the interest of the employees. In choosing and crafting an appropriate bargaining unit, e@treme care should be ta/en to pre#ent an employer from ha#ing any undue ad#antage o#er the employees; bargaining representati#e. -ur wor/ers are wea/ enough and it is not our social policy to further debilitate their bargaining representati#e. Hence, the S2 considered the challenged Gesolution and -rder of public respondent are hereby AFFIG3+5 in toto, there being no showing of gra#e abuse of discretion or lac/ of jurisdiction

5. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUP. UNION VS. LAGUESMA G.R. NO. 110#$$, AUGUST 15, 1$$%
FACTS: <etitioner union filed before 5-6+ a <etition for 5irect 2ertification or 2ertification +lection among the super#isors and e@empt employees of the S32 3agnolia <oultry <roducts <lants of 2abuyao, San Fernando and -tis. 3ed-Arbiter 5anilo 6. Geynante issued an -rder ordering the conduct of certification election among the abo#ementioned employees of the different plants as one bargaining unit. San 3iguel 2orporation filed a 1otice of Appeal with 3emorandum on Appeal, pointing out, among others, the 3ed-Arbiter!s error in grouping together all three (A) separate plants, into one bargaining unit, and in including super#isory le#els A and abo#e whose positions are confidential in nature. 0he public respondent, Jndersecretary 6aguesma, granted respondent company!s Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the 3ed-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classification of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. Jpon petitioner-union!s motion, Jndersecretary 6aguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the super#isors ran/ed as super#isory le#els ( to C (S( to SC) and the e@empt employees in each of the three plants at 2abuyao, San Fernando and -tis. ISSUES: (. &hether Super#isory employees A and C and the e@empt employees of the company are considered confidential employees, hence ineligible from joining a union. >. If they are not confidential employees, do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit. HELD: (() -n the first issue, this 2ourt rules that said employees do not fall within the term $confidential employees% who may be prohibited from joining a union. 0hey are not :ualified to be classified as managerial employees who, under Article >C* of the 6abor 2ode, are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organiBation. In the #ery same pro#ision, they are not allowed membership in a labor organiBation of the ran/-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organiBations of their own. 2onfidential employees are those who (() assist or act in a confidential capacity, (>) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. 0he two criteria are cumulati#e, and both must be met if an employee is to be

considered a confidential employee Q that is, the confidential relationship must e@ist between the employee and his super#isor, and the super#isor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. 0he e@clusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objecti#e sought to be accomplished by the %confidential employee rule.% 0he broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position in#ol#ing a potential conflict of interests. $3anagement should not be re:uired to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with which the company is re:uired to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain ad#ance information of the company!s position with regard to contract negotiations, the disposition of grie#ances, or other labor relations matters.% 0he 2ourt held that $if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Jnion, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Jnion in #iew of e#ident conflict of interest. 0he Jnion can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Jnion membership.% An important element of the $confidential employee rule% is the employee!s need to use labor relations information. 0hus, in determining the confidentiality of certain employees, a /ey :uestion fre:uently considered is the employee!s necessary access to confidential labor relations information. (>) 0he fact that the three plants are located in three different places, namely, in 2abuyao, 6aguna, in -tis, <andacan, 3etro 3anila, and in San Fernando, <ampanga is immaterial. Eeographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed. An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as $a group of employees of a gi#en employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collecti#e interest of all the employees, consistent with e:uity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to ser#e the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collecti#e bargaining pro#isions of the law.% A unit to be appropriate must effect a grouping of employees who ha#e substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, wor/ing conditions and other subjects of collecti#e bargaining.

".UNIVERSIT OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FERRER! CALLEJA, 211 SCRA 451


FACTS: 0he case was initiated in the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations by a petition filed on 3arch >, ())7 by a registered labor union, the ,-rganiBation of 1on-Academic <ersonnel of J<, (-1A<J<). 2laiming to ha#e a membership of A,>A8 members Q comprising more than AAK of the ),8(.

persons constituting the non-academic personnel of J<5iliman, 6os 4aTos, 3anila, and Oisayas, it sought the holding of a certification election among all said nonacademic employees of the Jni#ersity of the <hilippines. -n April (D, ())7, another registered labor union, the ,All J< &or/ers; Jnion,, filed a comment, as inter#enor in the certification election proceeding. For its part, the Jni#ersity, through its Eeneral 2ounsel, made of record its #iew that there should be two (>) unionsL one for academic, the other for non-academic or administrati#e, personnel considering the dichotomy of interests, conditions and rules go#erning these employee groups. 5irector 2alleja ruled on the matter on August ., ())7 and declared that ,the appropriate organiBational unit . . should embrace all the regular ran/-and-file employees, teaching and non-teaching, of the Jni#ersity of the <hilippines, including all its branches, and that there was no sufficient e#idence ,to justify the grouping of the nonacademic or administrati#e personnel into an organiBation unit apart and distinct from that of the academic or teaching personnel., 0he 5irector thus commanded that a certification election be in all four autonomous campuses of the J<, and that management appear and bring copies of the corresponding payrolls for 'anuary, 'une, and 'uly, ())7 at the ,usual pre-election conference . . ., At the pre-election conference held on 3arch >>, ())7 at the 6abor -rganiBational 5i#ision of the 5-6+, the Jni#ersity sought further clarification of the co#erage of the term, ,ran/-and-file, personnel, asserting that not e#ery employee could properly be embraced within both teaching and non-teaching categories since there are those whose positions are in truth managerial and policydetermining, and hence, e@cluded by law. At a subse:uent hearing (on -ctober C, ())7), the Jni#ersity filed a 3anifestation see/ing the e@clusion from the organiBational unit of those employees holding super#isory positions among non-academic personnel, and those in teaching staff with the ran/ of Assistant <rofessor or higher. 5irector 2alleja subse:uently promulgated an -rder dated -ctober A7, ())7, resol#ing that said teachers are ran/and-file employees ,:ualified to join unions and #ote in certification elections., 0he Jni#ersity seasonably mo#ed for reconsideration but such motion was denied by 5irector 2alleja, by -rder dated 1o#ember >7, ())7. 0he Jni#ersity would now ha#e the2ourt for this special ci#il action of certiorari to declare #oid the 5irector;s -rder of -ctober A7, ())7 as well as that of 1o#ember >7, ())7. A temporary restraining order was issued by the 2ourt, by Gesolution dated 5ecember *, ())7 conformably to the Jni#ersity;s application therefor. ISSUES:

(. whether or not professors, associate professors and assistant professors are ,high-le#el employees, ,whose functions are normally considered policy determining, managerial or . . highly confidential in nature., >. whether or not, they, and other employees performing academic functions, should comprise a collecti#e bargaining unit distinct and different from that consisting of the non-academic employees of the Jni#ersity, considering the dichotomy of interests, conditions and rules e@isting between them HELD: (. 1o. 0he professors, associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as e@ercising such managerial or highly confidential functions as would justify their being categoriBed as ,high-le#el employees, of the institution. It is e#ident that it is the Jni#ersity Academic <ersonnel 2ommittee, composed of deans, the assistant for academic affairs and the chief of personnel, which formulates the policies, rules and standards respecting selection, compensation and promotion of members of the academic staff. 0he departmental and college academic personnel committees; functions are purely recommendatory in nature, subject to re#iew and e#aluation by the Jni#ersity Academic <ersonnel 4oard 0he power or prerogati#e pertaining to a high-le#el employee ,to effecti#ely recommend such managerial actions, to formulate or e@ecute management policies or decisions andIor to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, dismiss, assign or discipline employees, is e@ercised to a certain degree by the uni#ersity academic personnel boardIcommittees and ultimately by the 4oard of Gegents in accordance with Section 8 of the Jni#ersity. >. ?es.A ,bargaining unit, has been defined as a group of employees of a gi#en employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collecti#e interest of all the employees, consistent with e:uity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to ser#e the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collecti#e bargaining pro#isions of the law. -ur labor laws do not howe#er pro#ide the criteria for determining the proper collecti#e bargaining unit. Section (> of the old law, Gepublic Act 1o. D.* otherwise /nown as the Industrial <eace Act. 0he test of the grouping is community or mutuality of interests which is ;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 e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights; (Gothenberg on 6abor Gelations, C)7)., Since then, the =community or mutuality o interests= test has pro#ided the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collecti#e bargaining unit. In the case at bar, the Jni#ersity employees may, as already suggested, :uite easily be categoriBed into two general classesL one, the group

composed of employees whose functions are nonacademic, i.e., janitors, messengers, typists, cler/s, receptionists, carpenters, electricians, grounds-/eepers, chauffeurs, mechanics, plumbersF and t"o, the group made up of those performing academic functions, i.e., full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors Q who may be judges or go#ernment e@ecuti#es Q and research, e@tension and professorial staff. 1ot much reflection is needed to percei#e that the community or mutuality of interests which justifies the formation of a single collecti#e bargaining unit is wanting between the academic and non-academic personnel of the uni#ersity. It would seem ob#ious that teachers would find #ery little in common with the Jni#ersity cler/s and other non-academic employees as regards responsibilities and functions, wor/ing conditions, compensation rates, social life and interests, s/ills and intellectual pursuits, cultural acti#ities, etc. -n the contrary, the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of the wor/ and duties as well as in the compensation and wor/ing conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collecti#e bargaining. 0he formation of two separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the ran/-and-file non-academic personnel, and the second, of the ran/-and-file academic employees, is the set-up that will best assure to all the employees the e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights. 0hese special circumstances, i.e., the dichotomy of interests and concerns as well as the dissimilarity in the nature and conditions of wor/, wages and compensation between the academic and non-academic personnel, bring the case at bar within the e@ception contemplated in Section ) of +@ecuti#e -rder 1o. (D7. It was gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of the 6abor Gelations 5irector to ha#e ruled otherwise, ignoring plain and patent realities. 0herefore, the S2AFFIG3+5 the decision of 5irector 2alleja in resol#ing that said teachers are ran/and-file employees ,:ualified to join unions and #ote in certification elections in so far as it declares the professors, associate professors and assistant professors of the Jni#ersity of the <hilippines as ran/-and-file employees. 0he -rder of August ., ())7 is 3-5IFI+5 in the sense that the non-academic ran/-and-file employees of the Jni#ersity of the <hilippines shall constitute a bargaining unit to the e@clusion of the academic employees of the institution.

FACTS: 0he respondent herein, ,Samahan ng mga 3anggagawa, etc.,, filed a petition on (A February ()8* before the 2ourt of Industrial Gelations calling attention to the fact that there were three unions in the 2aloocan shops of the <hilippine 1ational GailwaysL the ,Samahan,, the ,Papisanan ng 3anggagawa sa 3anila Gailroad 2ompany,, and the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor JnionF that no certification election had been held in the last (> months in the 2aloocan shopsF that both the ,Samahan, and the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion had submitted different labor demands upon the management for which reason a certification election was needed to determine the proper collecti#e bargaining agency for the 2aloocan shop wor/ers. 0he petition was opposed by the management as well as by the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion, the latter a#erring that it had been pre#iously certified in two cases as sole and e@clusi#e bargaining agent of the employees and laborers of the <1G;S mechanical department, and had negotiated two bargaining agreements with management in ()8( and ()8AF that before the e@piration of the latter, a renewal thereof had been negotiated and the contract remained to be signedF that the ,Samahan, had been organiBed only in >( 'anuary ()8*F that the 2aloocan shops unit was not established nor separated from the 3echanical 5epartment unitF that the ,Samahan, is composed mainly of super#isors who had filed a pending case to be declared non-super#isorsF and that the purpose of the petition was to disturb the present smooth wor/ing labor management relations. 'udge 3artineB held that the employees in the 2aloocan Shops should be gi#en a chance to #ote on whether their group should be separated from that represented by the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion, and ordered a plebiscite held for the purpose. 0he ruling was sustained by the 2ourt en banc> wherefore, the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion appealed to this 2ourt :uestioning the applicability under the circumstances of the ,Elobe doctrine, of considering the will of the employees in determining what union should represent them. ISSUE: &hether or not a new unit should be established, the 2aloocan shops, separate and distinct from the rest of the wor/ers under the 3echanical 5epartment now represented by the 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion. HELD: 1o. 0he appeal is premature, since the result of the ordered plebiscite among the wor/ers of the 2aloocan shops may be ad#erse to the formation of a separate unit, in which e#ent, as stated in the appealed order, all :uestions raised in this case would be rendered moot and academic. 0he Industrial 2ourt has found that there is a basic difference, in that those in the 2aloocan shops not

%.MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR UNION CIR G.R. NO. L!2822#, AUGUST #0, 1$"8

VS.

only ha#e a community of interest and wor/ing conditions but perform major repairs of railway rolling stoc/, using hea#y e:uipment and machineries found in said shops, while the others only perform minor repairs. It is easy to understand, therefore, that the wor/ers in the 2aloocan shops re:uire special s/ill in the use of hea#y e:uipment and machinery sufficient to set them apart from the rest of the wor/ers. In addition, the record shows that the collecti#e bargaining agreements negotiated by the appellant union ha#e been in e@istence for more than two (>) yearsF hence, such agreements can not constitute a bar to the determination, by proper elections, of a new bargaining representati#e (<650 +mployees; Jnion #s. <hilippine 6ong 5istance 0elephone 2o., *( -ff. EaB., C*()). 2A affirmed the decision of the 2IG, with costs against appellant 3echanical 5epartment 6abor Jnion of the <hilippine 1ational Gailways.

-n September A, ()D8, pri#ate respondent filed its position paper and -n September >C, ()D8, the 3edArbiter dismissed the election protest. -n -ctober (7, ()D8, petitioner 1AF0J appealed the order of the 3ed-Arbiter to the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations in 3anila which denied the appeal and the two motions for reconsideration. Hence, this petition certiorari . ISSUE: &hether or not it was right for the med-arbiter to change the employer from two separate bargaining units to only one. HELD: ?es. Significantly, out of two hundred and one (>7() employees of 3A65+2-, one hundred se#enty fi#e ((.*) consented and supported the petition for certification election, thereby confirming their desire for one bargaining representati#e (Gollo, p. (7C). 3oreo#er, while the e@istence of bargaining history is a factor that may be rec/oned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisi#e or conclusi#e. -ther factors must be considered. 0he test of grouping is community or mutuality of interests. 0his 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 e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights., (5emocratic 6abor Association #. 2ebu Ste#edoring 2ompany, Inc., et al., (7A <hil. ((7A M()*DN. 2ertainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the Sawmill 5i#ision and the 6ogging 5i#ision. 0heir functions mesh with one another. -ne group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. 0here may be difference as to the nature of their indi#idual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit. 0herefore, the S2 affirmed the decision of the 46G.

8. NAT. ASSOC. OF FREE TRADE UNIONS VS. MAINIT LUMBER DEV. CO. UNION G.R. NO. %$52", DECEMBER 21, 1$$0
FACTS: -n 'anuary >D, ()D*, pri#ate respondent 3ainit 6umber 5e#elopment 2ompany &or/ers Jnion-Jnited 6umber and Eeneral &or/ers of the <hilippines, 3A65+2-&JJ6E&< (J6E&<, for short), a legitimate labor organiBation duly registered with the 3inistry of 6abor and +mployment under Gegistry 1o. >)CC-I<, filed with Gegional -ffice 1o. (7, 3inistry of 6abor and +mployment at 2agayan de -ro 2ity, a petition for certification election to determine the sole and e@clusi#e collecti#e bargaining representati#e among the ran/ and file wor/ersIemployees of 3ainit 6umber 5e#elopment 2ompany Inc. (3A65+2-), a duly organiBed, registered and e@isting corporation engaged in the business of logging and saw-mill operations employing appro@imately (A8 ran/ and file employeesIwor/ers .-n April ((, ()D*, the 3ed-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election. -n April >8, ()D*, 1AF0J appealed the decision of the 3ed-Arbiter on the ground that 3A65+2was composed of two (>) bargaining units, the Sawmill 5i#ision and the 6ogging 5i#ision, but both the petition and decision treated these separate and distinct units only as one. -n April >D, ()D8, the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations affirmed the decision. 0hus, a certification election was held on separate dates at the employer;s sawmill di#ision and logging area respecti#ely. In said election 3A65+2-&J-J6E&< garnered a total #ote of (C8 while 1AF0J garnered a total of > #otes.

$. PHIL LAND!AIR!SEA LABOR UNION VS. CIR G.R. NO. LI14"5", NOV. 2$, 1$"0
FACTS: 0he Industrial 2ourt of 2ebu on 3ay >*, ()*8 ordered the holding of a certification election to determine which of the two contending labor unions therein, herein petitioner <hilippine 6and-Air-Sea 6abor Jnion (<6AS6J) or respondent Allied &or/ers; Association of the

<hilippines (A&A), shall be the sole collecti#e bargaining agent of the employees of the San 2arlos 3illing 2o. <rior to the holding of the election, respondent A&A filed an urgent motion to e@clude (CC employees from participating in the election. 0he motion, howe#er, was denied. -n September >(, ()*8, the certification election was held in the premises of the San 2arlos 3illing 2o., <6AS6J recei#ing DD #otes while A&A garnered (C), with A)7 ballets recorded as challenged, >C> of them by the petitioner <6AS6J and ,(CD by the respondent awa. &ithin .> hours after the closing of the election, as re:uired by the Gules for 2ertification +lection, awa filed with the Industrial 2ourt a petition contesting the election on the ground of the ineligibility of the #oters. <6AS6J, on the other hand, in an urgent motion :uestioned the #alidity of the >C> ballots cast by the ste#edores and piece wor/ers. 0he Industrial 2ourt, howe#er ordered that all the A)7 challenged ballots be opened and can#assed and the corresponding #otes added to those already credited to the contending labor unions. <6AS6J mo#ed for reconsideration of the order but the motion was denied and pursuant to said order the challenged ballots were opened. After the can#ass, (CD #otes challenged by awa were counted in fa#or of <6AS6J. -f the >C> #otes challenged by <6AS6J, A were counted in its fa#or, >>D credited in fa#or of awa, and (( declared either for no union or spoiled ballots. Adding the #otes to the results of the certification election, the final count showed that respondent A&A garnered a total of A.. #otes as against >A) for <6AS6J. Accordingly, said respondent was certified by the Industrial 2ourt in its order dated 3arch (>, ()*D as the sole collecti#e bargaining agent of the employees of the San 2arlos 3illing 2o. As its motion for reconsideration of the order was denied by the court en banc .0he petitioner <6AS6J filed the present petition for re#iew, contending that the Industrial 2ourt erred in not e@cluding the >C> #otes challenged by it from the total number of #otes credited to respondent A&A. ISSUE: &hether or not the challenged #otes of the piecewor/ers and ste#edores are #alid= HELD: 1o. In the case of 5emocratic 6abor Jnion vs. 2ebu Ste#edoring 2o., Inc., et al. (E.G. 1o. 6-(7A>(, February >D, ()*D) this 2ourt had occasion to rule that in the determination of the proper constituency of a collecti#e bargaining unit, certain factors must be considered, among them, the employment status of the employees to be affected, that is to say, the positions and categories of wor/ to which they belong, and the unity of employees; interest such as substantial similarity of wor/ and duties. 0he most efficacious bargaining unit is one which is comprised of constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of interest. And this is so because the basic test

of a bargaining unit;s acceptability is whether it will best assure to all employees the e@ercise of their collecti#e bargaining rights. It appearing that the >C> ste#edores and piece wor/ers, whose #otes ha#e been challenged, were employed on a casual or day to day basis and ha#e no reasonable basis for continued or renewed employment for any appreciable substantial timeQnot to mention the nature of wor/ they performQthey cannot be considered to ha#e such mutuality of interest as to justify their inclusion in a bargaining unit composed of permanent or regular employees. 0here is nothing to the contention that the order complained of is merely complementary to the order of the Industrial 2ourt dated September C, ()*., which has become final and e@ecutory the same not ha#ing been appealed. It will be obser#ed that the said order of September C, ()*. merely ordered the opening and can#assing of the challenged ballots. Any appeal ta/en from said order would therefore ha#e been premature. Hence, the order complained of is re#ersed and the petitioner <6AS6J is hereby certified as the collecti#e bargaining agent of the employees of the San 2arlos 3illing 2ompany. &ithout costs. 10. DIATAGON LABOR FEDERATION VS. OPLE 101

SCRA 5#4
FACTSL 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in logging and manufacturing plywood. 0he 5iatagon 6abor Federation 6ocal ((7 of J6E&< (Jnited 6umber and Eeneral &or/ers of the <hilippines) had a collecti#e bargaining agreement with the 6ianga 4ay logging 2o., Inc. which was due to e@pire on 3arch A(, ().*. -n February A, ().*, or before the e@piration of that 24A, a ri#al union, the 3indanao Association of 0rade Jnions, filed with the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations a petition for the holding of a certification election at 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc., 46G 2ase 1o. 7A)). 4efore that petition could be acted upon, the 5iatagon 6abor Federation was able to negotiate on 3arch (., ().* with Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation a 24A for a term of three years e@piring on 3arch A(, ().D whose 24A was certified by the 4ureau of 6abor Gelations on 'uly (7, ().*.0he said 24A included >A8 employees wor/ing at the #eneer plant and electrical department of Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation in 6ianga. 0hose >A8 employees were formerly employees of 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. After 'uly, ().C, they were transferred to Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation and became employees of the latter In spite of the transfer, the >A8 employees continued to use in ().* the pay en#elopes and Identification cards of their former employer, 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. 0hat confusing circumstance spawned the contro#ersy in this case because the 3indanao Association of 0rade

Jnions and the 5irector of 6abor Gelations used that circumstance to support their conclusion that the >A8 employees should still be regarded as employees of 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. and not of Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation or that the two companies should be regarded as only one bargaining unit. ISSUE: &hether two companies should be regarded as a single collecti#e bargaining unit= HELD: 1o. 0he two companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. 0he fact that their businesses are related and that the >A8 employees of Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation were originally employees of 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. is not a justification for disregarding their separate personalities. Hence, the >A8 employees, who are now attached to Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation, should not be allowed to #ote in the certification election at the 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. 0hey should #ote at a separate certification election to determine the collecti#e bargaining representati#e of the employees of Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation. Howe#er, at this late hour, or after the lapse of more than fi#e years, the result of the ().* certification election should not be implemented. A new certification election should be held at 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. but the >A8 employees should not be allowed to #ote in that election. &ith respect to the refusal of the Secretary of 6abor (now 3inister of 6abor and +mployment) to entertain appeals from the orders of the 5irector of 6abor Gelations, that norm of conduct is based on the rule laid down by the Secretary himself in Gule O (2ertification 2ases and IntraJnion 2onflicts of 4oo/ Fi#e M6abor GelationsN) of the Gules and Gegulations Implementing the 6abor 2ode dated February (8, ().8, which Gule O pro#idesL 9E4T'() 10. $ecision o the ;ureau is inal and inappealable. The ;ureau shall have t"enty 5206 "or?ing days rom receipt o the records o the case "ithin "hich to decide the appeal 5 rom the ,ed-Arbiter6. The decision o the ;ureau in all cases shall be inal and inappealable. 5sic6 &H+G+F-G+, the orders of the 5irector of 6abor Gelations holding that the employees of 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. and Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation should be treated as one bargaining unit are re#ersed and set aside. A new certification election should be held at 6ianga 4ay 6ogging 2o., Inc. 0he >A8 employees of Eeorgia <acific International 2orporation should not be allowed to #ote in that election.

FACTS: -n 5ecember ()D8, 5e 6a Salle Jni#ersity and 5e 6a Salle Jni#ersity +mployees Association entered into a collecti#e bargaining agreement with a life span of A years, that is, from 5ecember >A, ()D8-5ecember >>, ()D). 5uring the freedom period, or 87 days before the e@piration of the said collecti#e bargaining agreement, the Jnion initiated negotiations with the Jni#ersity for a new collecti#e bargaining agreement, which howe#er, turned out to be unsuccessful, hence the Jnion filed a 1otice of Stri/e with the 1ational 2onciliation and 3ediation 4oard, 1ational 2apital Gegion. After se#eral conciliationmediation meetings, * out of the (( issues raised in the 1otice of Stri/e were resol#ed by the parties. A partial collecti#e bargaining agreement was e@ecuted by the parties. -n 3arch (D, ())(, the parties entered into a Submission Agreement identifying the 8 unresol#ed issues. 0he parties appointed 4uena#entura 3agsalin as #oluntary arbitrator. 0he Ooluntary Arbitrator is constrained to respect the original intention of the parties, the same being not contrary to law, morals or public policy. Subse:uently, both parties filed their respecti#e motions for reconsideration which, howe#er, were not entertained by the #oluntary arbitrator. -n 3arch *, ())A, the Jni#ersity filed with the Second 5i#ision of this 2ourt a petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order andIor preliminary injunction assailing the decision of the #oluntary arbitrator, as ha#ing been rendered $in e@cess of jurisdiction andIor gra#e abuse of discretion.% 6i/ewise, the Jnion also filed a petition for certiorari with the First 5i#ision. Jpon motion by the Solicitor Eeneral, both petitions were consolidated and transferred to the Second 5i#ision. 0he Solicitor Eeneral came to the conclusion sufficient e#idence to justify the Jnion!s proposal to consider the Jni#ersity and the 2S4 as only one entity because the latter is but a mere integral part of the uni#ersity. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: &hether or not the #oluntary arbitrator committed gra#e abuse of discretion with respect to (() computer operators assigned at the Jni#ersity!s 2omputer Ser#ices 2enter and the Jni#ersity!s discipline officers may be considered as confidential employees and should therefore be e@cluded from the bargaining unitF (>) a union shop clause should be included in the parties! collecti#e bargaining agreementF (A) the denial of the Jnion!s proposed method of laying-off employees is properF (C) the ruling that on the basis of the Jni#ersity!s proposed budget, the Jni#ersity can no longer be re:uired to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years ())(-)>F (*) the denial of the Jnion!s proposals on the deloading of the union president is properF (8) the finding that the mulit-sectoral committee is the legitimate group

11. DLSU VS. DLSU EMPLO EES ASSOCIATION G.R. NO. 10$002, APRIL 12, 2000

which determines the annual salary increasesF and (.) the ruling that .7K share in the incremental tuition proceeds is the only source of salary increases and fringe benefits of the employees is proper. HELD: 0he petitions in the consolidated cases are partially granted. -n the first issue, the 2ourt agrees with the Solicitor Eeneral that the e@press e@clusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of ran/-and-file employees in the ()D8 collecti#e bargaining agreement does not bar any renegotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. -n the second issue, the right to join a labor organiBation should carry with it the corollary right not to join the same. -n the third issue, the Supreme 2ourt affirms the ruling of the #oluntary arbitrator for the inclusion of a union shop pro#ision in addition to the e@isting maintenance of membership clause in the collecti#e bargaining agreement. 0he right to refrain from joining labor organiBations recogniBed by Section A of the Industrial <eace Act is howe#er limited. 0he legal protection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law, where a labor union and an employer ha#e agreed on a closed shop, by #irtue of which the employer may employ only members of the collecti#e bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to /eep their jobs. -n the fourth issue, the uni#ersity can no longer be re:uired to grant a second round of wage increases for the school years ())(-)>>> and ())>)A and charge the same to the incremental proceeds. 0he #oluntary arbitrator committed gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lac/ of e@cess of jurisdiction. -n the fifth issue, the Supreme 2ourt agrees with the #oluntary arbitrator!s rejection of the said demands, there being no justifiable reason for the granting of the same. -n the si@th issue, the 2ourt finds that the #oluntary arbitrator did not gra#ely abuse his discretion on the matter. It appears that during the parties! negotiations for a new collecti#e bargaining agreement, the Jnion demanded for a >*K and C7K salary increase for the >nd and Ard years. Assuming for the sa/e of argument that the said committee is the group responsible for determining wage increases and fringe benefits, as ruled by the #oluntary arbitrator, the committee!s determination must still be based on duly audited financial statements. -n the sec#enth issue, the 2ourt deems that any determination of this alleged error is unnecessary and irrele#ant, in #iew of the rulings on the fourth and preceding issues and there being no e#idence presented before the #oluntary arbitrator that the Jni#ersity held incremental tuition fee proceeds from which any wage increase or fringe benefit may be satisfied.