ALU vs.

Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178

FACTS:
Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) informed private respondent GAW Trading,
Inc. that a majority of the latter's employees had authorized it to be their sole and
exclusive bargaining representative. Petitioner thereafter requested that private
respondent conduct a conference with it for the execution of an initial CBA.
On the ff day, ALU's Chairman furnished GAW Trading 10 final copies of the CBA for
Comment, or otherwise, for signing. Two days later, ALU (in behalf of majority of the
employees of GAW Trading, Inc.) signed and executed the collective bargaining
agreement.
In the meantime, the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) together with
nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) undertook a strike after it failed to get
the management of GAW Trading, Inc. to sit for a conference respecting its
demands. Specifically, SPFL wanted GAW Trading, Inc. to make a turn-about of its
standing recognition of ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees.
GAW Trading filed a petition for a Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction seeking to
enjoin SPFL from continuing with the strike. Acting on the petition, the Labor Arbiter
declared the strike illegal.
Later, the Med-Arbiter issued an order declaring that a certification election be held
for all branches of GAW Trading, Inc. Aggrieved by the decision, ALU filed an appeal,
which the Bureau of Labor Relations Director granted. However, the decision was
reversed by respondent Director, on the ground that the CBA between petitioner
and GAW Trading was defective.
Petitioner thus filed SCA-C, asserting that the Med-Arbiter committed GAD in issuing
the order declaring that a certification election be held for all branches of GAW
Trading, Inc. It asseverated that the CBA between it and GAW Trading was not
defective
ISSUE:
W/N the CBA entered into between petitioner and GAW Trading was defective.
D/R:
NO.
The public respondent was correct in its holding that the CBA between petitioner
and GAW Trading was defective, for various reasons. First, the mechanics of

collective bargaining are set in motion only when the ff jurisdictional preconditions
are present:
1) possession of the status of majority representation by the employees'
representative in accordance with any of the means of selection and/or
designation provided for by the Labor Code;
2) proof of majority representation; and
3) a demand to bargain under LC251, (a). (PPD)
In this case, petitioner's status as an exclusive bargaining representative was found
to be dubious. Respondent GAW Trading sent a letter to the petitioner, merely
indicating that it was not against the desire of its workers and required petitioner to
present proof that it was supported by the majority in a meeting to be held on a
specified date. Yet petitioner did not positively establish that the employees
expressly recognized it as their exclusive bargaining representative. Clearly,
respondent GAW Trading acted with undue haste in recognizing petitioner as the
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees, for it merely relied on the latter's selfserving claim that it was indeed recognized as such by said employees. Hence,
there is no clear compliance with the jurisdictional preconditions for collective
bargaining.
Second, there was a failure to post the CBA in at least two conspicuous places in the
establishment at least 5 days before its ratification. Petitioner ratiocinated that the
illegal strike staged by SPFL made it impossible to comply with the posting
requirement, for it resulted in the absence of impartial members of the bargaining
unit who could be apprised of the CBA's contents.
The SC found petitioner's justification puerile and unacceptable. In the first place,
the posting of copies of the CBA is the responsibility of the employer, and not the
petitioner. Secondly, the formulation and finalization of the CBA was suspect, for
there appeared to be undue haste in the conduct thereof. Hence, that an illegal
strike was conducted by the SPFL is of no moment.
Third, the public respondent director found that 181 of the 281 workers who
supposedly ratified the CBA had soon manifested their strong and vehement denial
and/or repudiation of the alleged negotiation and ratification of the CBA. This
indicates that the CBA would be detrimental to industrial stability.
Hence, the public respondent was correct in finding the CBA to be defective.