Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc vs Ferrer-Calleja

GR No. 81883

Facts: KNITJOY has a CBA agreement with the Federation of Filipino Workers
which covered only the regular rank-and-file employees paid on a daily or
piece-rate basis which expired on June 15, 1987. FFW was split into 2
factions, the Johnny Tan and the Aranzamendez. The latter eventually
became the Confederation of Filipino Workers.
The Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services filed a petition
for the holding of certification election among KNITJOYs regular rank-and-
file employees paid on a daily or piece-rate basis excluding the regular rank-
and-file employees paid on a monthly basis. CFW emerged as the winner
and thereafter, CBA negotiations between CFW and KNITJOY commenced.
Knitjoy Monthly Employees Union filed a petition for certification
election among the regular rank-and-file monthly paid employees during the
pendency of the said negotiation. The petition was dismissed by the med-
arbiter. On motion for reconsideration (appeal), Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja
of BLR reversed the decision of the med-arbiter granting the petition for
certification election filed by KMEU.
KNITJOY and CFW separately moved to reconsider the decision
alleging that a CBA, signed between them on Nov. 27, 1987, included in its
coverage the monthly-paid rank-and-file employees and their removal would
lead to fragmentation. The MR was denied for lack of merit.
KNITJOY and CFW filed instant petitions contending among others that
respondent director violated the one company-one union policy of the labor
code and it disregarded the CBA provisions which considered the CFW as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank and file employees.
Issue: Whether or not Knitjoys monthly-paid regular rank-and-file
employees can constitute a bargaining unit separate from the existing unit
composed of employees paid on a daily or piece-rate basis.
Whether or not the inclusion in the CBA between Knitjoy and CFW of the
monthly paid employees bars the holding of certification election among the
said employees.
Held: 1. Yes. Art. 245 of the Labor Code allows supervisory employees who
are not performing managerial functions to join, assist or form their separate
union but bars them from membership in a labor organization of the rank
and file employees. This provision allows more than one union in a company.
The one company-one union policy must yield to the right of employees to
form unions or associations for purposes not contrary to law, to self-
organization and to enter into collective bargaining negotiations, among
others, which the constitution guarantees.
The record disclose that in the certification election solicited by TUPAS and
during the elections which followed thereafter, the monthly paid employees
were expressly excluded. Clearly therefore, KNITJOY and CFW recognize that
insofar as the monthly paid employees are concerned, the latters
constituting a separate bargaining unit with the appropriate union as sole
bargaining representative, can neither be prevented nor avoided without
infringing on these employees rights to form union and to enter into
collective bargaining negotiations.
2. No. The new CBA was executed before the resolution of KMEUs petition
for certification election among the monthly paid employees became final.
Considering that TUPAS solicited certification election was strictly confined to
the employees who are paid on a daily or piece-rate basis, the result of the
election must also be necessarily confine the certified unions representation
of the group it represents. While the issue of the monthly paid employees
was still pending, KNITJOY and CFW clearly acted with palpable bad faith
and malice in including within the scope of the new CBA the monthly paid
employees.