Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

71.

ASSOCIATED TRADE UNION vs NORIEL


GR NO. L-48367 JAN 16, 1979

ISSUE:
Whether or not the renewed CB forged between the respondent company and pe
titioner union constitutes a bar to the holding of a certification election?

RULING:

No.From the foregoing facts, it is quite obvious that the renewed CBA cannot subs
titute a bar to the instant petition for certification election. In the first place, the s
aid CBA was certified after the instant petition for certification had been filed by h
erein respondent union, and its certification was conditioned upon the fact that t
here was no pending petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor R
elations. In the second place, the new CBA which was to expire on October 31, 19
77. Hence, said new CBA was not yet in existence when the instant petition for ce
rtification election was filed on September 13, 1977. Said new CBA was to become
effective on November 1, 1977 after the old CBA expires on October 31, 1977, an
d this, if no representation issue had arisen in the meantime, which is not the cas
e. Clearly, therefore, the contractbar rule does not apply to the case at bar. Finally
it is undubitably clear from the facts heretofore unfolded that management and
petitioner herein proceeded with such indecent haste in renewing their CBA way
ahead of the ‘sixtyday freedom period’ in their obvious desire to frustrate the will
of the rank-and-file employees in selecting their collective bargaining
representative. To countenance the actuation of the company and the petitioner
herein would be violative of the employees’ constitutional right to self-
organization.

1
72. TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS. LABOR UNION vs TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS. CORP.
GR NO. 135806 AUG 8, 2002

ISSUE:
Whether or not possession of a certificate of registration is an adequate and unas
sailable proof that it possesses the requisite legal personality to file a Petition for
Certification Election?

RULING:

No. The Court said that the issuance of a certificate of registration in its favor is an
adequate and unassailable proof that it possesses the requisite legal personality t
o file a Petition for Certification Election. Not necessarily. It was evident that the u
nion has been issued a certificate the day after it applied for it considering that pr
ocessing course had to pass through routing, screening, and assignment, evaluatio
n, review and initialing, and approval/disapproval procedure, among others, that
a 30day period is provided for under the Labor Code for this purpose. As emphasi
zed in Progressive Development Corp. – Pizza Hut v. Laguesma, if a labor organizat
ion’s application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularitie
s, a labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organiza
tion. And if a certificate of registration has been issued, the propriety of its registr
ation could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in
accordance with Arts. 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly, by challenging
its petition for the issuance of an order for certification election. We believe the p
rocedural requirements to impugn the registration by petitioner were more than
adequately complied with as shown in the 1997 case of Toyota Motor Philippines
Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union.

There is no reason to belabor the primordial importance of strictly complying with


the registration requirements of the Labor Code. As we have explained in a long li
ne of cases, the activities of labor organizations, associations and unions are impr
essed with public interest, hence, must be protected.

2
73. SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC vs SAN MIGUEL CORP. SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT
UNION
GR NO. 146206 AUG 1, 2011

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly ruled regarding the status of Payroll Master,
Human Resource Assistant and Personal Assistant as Confidential employees?

RULING:
Yes to Human Resource assistant and Personal Assistant only.
Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential
capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative,
and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee
- that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his
supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating
to labor relations. The exclusion 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 objective sought to be accomplished by the
confidential employee rule.

A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the


custody, handling or care and protection of the employers property. Confidential
employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining
unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue
advantage. However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and
the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary
and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master
does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course
of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain
to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he
cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit.

Corollarily, 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

3
confidential records. Confidential employees are thus excluded from the rank-and-
file bargaining unit. The rationale for their separate category and disqualification
to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition for managerial employees,
because if allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be assured of
their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become
company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees in the union
membership. Having access to confidential information, confidential employees
may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy
or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.

In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource
Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of confidential employees
and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective
positions and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of ones
work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees,
access to employees' personal files and compensation package, and human
resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the
recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining negotiations,
assistance to management during grievance meetings and administrative
investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the petitioners team
of lawyers, and implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge
of their functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which
outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.

4
74. SAMAHANG MANGAGAWA NG PACIFIC MILLS vs NORIEL
GR NO. L-56588 JAN 17, 1985

ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for certification election should be granted to a new lab
or union considering there is a case pending between the contending unions with
regard to its certification election?

RULING:

Yes. With both the employer and the majority of the rank-and-
file workers in agreement that a certification election should be held, so be it. The
last certification election was held on September 26, 1977. There is no existing CB
A. The petition for a certification election has the written consent of more than 30
% of the members of the bargaining unit. In the light of these facts, Art. 258 of the
New Labor Code makes it mandatory for the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduc
t a certification election.

5
75. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES vs LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS INC PHILIPPINE
LABOR ALLIANCE
GR NO. 58768-70 DEC 21, 1989

ISSUE:
Whether or not the disaffiliation justifies termination considering the union organ
ized by the disaffiliated members won in the certification election?

RULING:

Yes. When the Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa won, it does not excuse the fact th
at the two disaffiliated from PLAC and thus rendered themselves subject to dismis
sal under the union shop clause in the CBA.

However, It is the policy of the State to promote unionism to enable the workers t
o negotiate with management on the same level and with more persuasiveness th
an if they were to individually and independently bargain for the improvement of
their respective conditions. To this end, the Constitution guarantees to them the r
ights “to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted actio
ns including the right to strike in accordance with law.” There is no question that t
hese purposes could be thwarted if every worker were to choose to go his own se
parate way instead of joining his co-
employees in planning collective action and presenting a united front when they s
it down to bargain with their employers. It is for this reason that the law has sanct
ioned stipulations for the union shop and the closed shop as a means of encouragi
ng the workers to join and support the labor union of their own choice as their re
presentative in the negotiation of their demands and the protection of their inter
est vis-a-vis the employer.

The Court would have preferred to resolve this case in favor of the petitioners, bu
t the law and the facts are against them. For all the concern of the State, for the w
ell-
being of the worker, we must at all times conform to the requirements of the law
as long as such law has not been shown to be violative of the Constitution. No suc
h violation has been shown here.

6
76. BRILLO vs BUKLATAN
GR NO. L-2213 OCT. 14, 1950

ISSUE:
Whether or not certiorari is proper with regard the granting of the Secretary of L
abor of licenses?

RULING:

The petition for certiorari does not lie because the Secretary of Labor did not exer
cise judicial function. Furthermore, there is no allegation that the new labor union
s have the purpose of undermining or destroying the constituted Government or
of violating any law or laws of the Philippines, and therefore, they cannot be deni
ed registration and permission to operate under section 2, of Commonwealth Act
No. 213.