Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

LABOR RELATIONS

JD LABOR LAW 2
2nd Sem, AY 2018-2019

WRITTEN REPORT
Collective Bargaining
Agreement

Atty. Jose Antonio Aliling

Groups 1 and 2:

Delos Santos
Isidoro
Manalo
Mendoza
Pallasigue
Pilotin
Saplagio
Sasis
Tamayo
Zoleta
Vallejos
Velasco
What is Collective Bargaining? It is a process where the parties agree to fix and administer terms and conditions of
employment which must not be below the minimum standards fixed by law, and set a mechanism for resolving their
grievances.

What is Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? It is a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to
wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or
questions under such agreement.

Is the ratification of the CBA by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit mandatory? Yes. The agreement
negotiated by the employees’ bargaining agent should be ratified or approved by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit.

Is there any exception to the requirement of mandatory ratification by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit? Yes. Ratification of the CBA by the employees in the bargaining unit is not needed when the CBA is a
product of an arbitral award by appropriate government authority or by a voluntary arbitrator.

What constitutes CBA registration? It is a process of determining whether the application for registration of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement complies with the Rules on CBA registration specifically Rule XVII of the Department Order No. 40-
03 or the Rules amending the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

What is the effect of the CBA registration? The registration of the CBA will bar a certification election except within the
last sixty days (freedom period) before the expiration of the five-year CBA.

What is the lifetime of a CBA? With respect to representation aspect, the CBA lasts for 5 years. However, not later than 3
years after the execution of the CBA, the economic provisions shall be renegotiated.

What is the freedom period? It refers to the last sixty days immediately preceding the expiration of the five-year CBA. A
petition for certification election may be filed during the freedom period.

Where to file the application for CBA registration? The application for CBA registration shall be filed at the Regional
Office that issued the certificate of registration or certificate of creation of chartered local of the labor union-party to the
agreement.

When to file the application for CBA registration? The application for registration of the CBA shall be filed within thirty
(30) days from the execution of such CBA.

What are the requirements for CBA registration? The following are the requirements for CBA registration (original and
two (2) duplicate copies which must be certified under oath by the representative of the employer and labor union
concerned): a) The Collective Bargaining Agreement; b) A statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was posted in
at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment concerned for at least five (5) days before its ratification; and c) A
statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was ratified by the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit of
the employer concerned.

Is registration fee required? Yes. The certificate of CBA registration shall be issued by the DOLE Regional Office only
upon payment of the prescribed registration fee.

DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation
to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
wages, hours of work and all other terms and any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a
contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party, but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a
proposal or to make any concession. (Article 252 LC)
DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY

Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective
collective bargaining agreements. bargaining agreement.

In the absence of an agreement or other When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain
voluntary arrangement providing for a more collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify
expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a
shall be the duty of the employer and the written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60)
representatives of the employees to bargain days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to
collectively in accordance with the provisions of keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the term and
this Code. (Article 251 LC) conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or
until a new agreement is reached by the parties. (Article 253 LC)

PROCEDURE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.


(Article 250 LC)

A PARTY DESIRES TO DESIRING PARTY SERVES OTHER PARTY REPLIES NOT


NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT. WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS LATER THAN TEN DAYS
PROPSAL. FROM RECEIPT OF NOTICE.

DURING CONCILIATION, IF DISPUTE IS NOT SETTLED,


PARTIES ARE PROHIBITED TO BOARD SHALL INTERVENE
DISRUPT OR IMPEDE THE UPON REQUEST OR OWN IN CASE OF DIFFRENCES,
EARLY SETTLEMENT OF THE INITIATIVE AND CALL FOR EITHER PARTY MAY
DISPUTES. CONCILLATION MEETINGS. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE
TO BEGIN NOT LATER THAN
10 DAYS.

Parties in CBA

Exclusive Bargaining Terms or mandatory provisions of


Representative refers to a CBA: Management (Employer)-
legitimate labor organization refers to any person or
duly recognize or certified 1. Wages entity who employs the
as the sole or agent of all the 2. Hours of work services of others, one for
employees in a bargaining 3. Vacations and Holidays whom employees work
unit. 4. Bonuses aho pays their wages or
5. Pensions and retirement salaries.
plans
6. Lay-offs
7. Employees workload
8. Work rules and regulations
9. Union Security
Arrangements
10. Grievance Machinery
11. Voluntary Arbitration
12. Other benefits under Labor
Standards
The employer is not under the legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. The preconditions in order to enter in a CBA:
1. Possession of the status of majority representation of the employees’ representative in accordance with any of the
means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code;
2. Proof of majority representation;
3. A demand to bargain under Article 256, Par. (a)
Duration (Term) of the CBA:

 With respect to representation aspect (refers to identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the CBA as
the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit), lasts for 5 years after the execution of the CBA.
 With respect to other provions: 1. economic (agreements with regard to wages, bonuses, incentives and other terms
and conditions for the benefit of the employee) 2. non-economic (includes management prerogatives, union security
clauses) may lasts for 3 years after the execution of the CBA.
When there is no CBA- it shall be the duty of employer and representatives of the employee to bargain collectively in
accordance with the provisions of the labor code. (LC, Art 262)
When there is a CBA- the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such
agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least
60 days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
the parties (LC, Art 264)
Labor Management Council- deals with the employer on matters affecting the employee’s rights, benefits, and welfare. The
purpose of LMC are 1. to strengthen the employees participation; 2. promote gainful employment; 3. improve working
conditions; 4; achieve increased productivity. It can exist where there is no union or co-exist with a union. It must not
replace a union. In short, LMC can deal with the employer on matters affecting the employees’ rights, benefits, and welfare.

WESLAYAN UNIVERSITY v. WUP FACULTY AND STAFF ASSOCIATION


When the provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is clear, leaving no doubt on the intention of the parties,
the literal meaning of the stipulation shall govern.
UST FACULTY UNION v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL G.R. No. 180892 April 7, 2009

The respondents are not guilty of Unfair Labor Practice. The fact of the matter is, the Gamilla Group represented itself to
respondents as the duly elected officials of the USTFU.22 As such, respondents were bound to deal with them. There was no
reason not to recognize the Gamilla Group as the new officers and directors of USTFU. And as stated in the above-quoted
provisions of the Labor Code, the UST was obligated to deal with the USTFU, as the recognized representative of the
bargaining unit, through the Gamilla Group. UST’s failure to negotiate with the USTFU would have constituted ULP.

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG MAYO
UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU), petitioner, vs. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent. G.R. Nos. 158944-45

The purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement resulting in a contract binding on the parties; but the
failure to reach an agreement after negotiations have continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith.
The statutes invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract, but they do not compel one. The duty to bargain does not
include the obligation to reach an agreement. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that Nestlé
was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy.

In the case at bar, Nestle never refused to bargain collectively with UFE-DFA-KMU. The corporation simply wanted to
exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during CBA negotiations, on the postulation that such was in the
nature of a unilaterally granted benefit. An employer’s steadfast insistence to exclude a particular substantive provision is no
different from a bargaining representative’s perseverance to include one that they deem of absolute necessity.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), and RITO MANGUBAT G.R. No. 146728

The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. The relation between labor and
management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union
requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective
bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five (5) years from the date of effectivity of
the CBA on December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of
effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to
negotiate in good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the
economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. The union
lived up to this obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three (3) years from the effectivity of
the original CBA. Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, GMC violated
its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice.

KIOK LOY vs. NLRC and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN) G.R. No. L-54334

Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks
under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound
and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal
obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse
“to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or
question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.
A Company’s refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad
faith and this is especially true where the Union’s request for a counter proposal is left unanswered.

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, September 18, 2000

Petitioner’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals
presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any
counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13,
1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as
its excuse for failing to file its reply. The petitioners failure to act upon the submitted CBA proposal within the ten-day
period exemplified in Article 250 of the Labor Code is a clear violation of the governing procedure of collective bargaining.
The factual backdrop of the termination of Ambas led the Court to no other conclusion that she was dismissed in order to
strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right of her co-workers in the bargaining table. While the Court
recognizes the right of the employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, nevertheless, the
dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of aw and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play. Even
assuming arguendo that Ambas was guilty of insubordination, such disobedience was not a valid ground to terminate her
employment. When the exercise of the management to discipline its employees tends to interfere with the employees’ right
to self-organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a prohibited act.

PAL v. PALEA, March 12, 2008

It is a well settled doctrine that the CBA extends to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining agreement,
including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, there would be discrimination.
Hence, the benefits of the CBA should be given to all employees who are members of the bargaining unit, not necessarily of
the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent. A bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less that all of the entire body of employees which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties o% the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
Article 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) vs. Sama-
SamangNagkakaisangManggagawasa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-
FVC-SIGLO), 606 SCRA 198, G.R. No. 176249

Whether or not the negotiated extension of the CBA term has legal effect on the FVCLU-PTGWO’s exclusive bargaining
representation status which remained effective only for five years ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003.

No. While the parties may agree to extend the CBA’s original five-year term together with all other CBA provisions, any
such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive collective bargaining
status. By express provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years
and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an
agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining
union’s exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the CBA’s first five years.

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Confesor, 262 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 111262 September 19, 1996

Article 253-A is a new provision. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6715 (the Herrera-Veloso Law)
which took effect on March 21, 1989. This new provision states that the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three
years, before the amendment of the law as far as the representation aspect is concerned. All other provisions of the CBA shall
be negotiated not later than three (3) years after its exe-cution. The “representation aspect” refers to the identity and majority
status of the union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit
concerned. “All other provisions” simply refers to the rest of the CBA, economic as well as non-economic provisions, except
representation. In the instant case, it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the non-representation provisions
of the CBA. Taking it from the history of their CBAs, SMC intended to have the terms of the CBA effective for three (3)
years reckoned from the expiration of the old or previous CBA which was on June 30, 1989, as it provides: SECTION 1. This
Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective
and shall remain in force and effect until June 30, 1992.

Article 254. Injunction prohibited.


Ando vs. Campo, 643 SCRA 513, G.R. No. 184007 February 16, 2011

Whether or not the RTC, or any regular court, may issue a TRO to prevent the execution of the Notice of Sale on
Execution of Personal Property. No. The Court has long recognized that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders, or awards rendered in
labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to
sanction splitting of jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making.

ISAE vs. QUISUMBING (G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000)

Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of local- hires. NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3,
specifically provides that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” These conditions are not restricted to the physical
workplace – the factory, the office or the field – but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 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
organization. The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4)
similarity of employment status.

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 exercise of their collective bargaining rights. In the case at bar, it does not appear that
foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFTU) vs. MAINIT LUMBER DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY WORKERS UNION-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
(MALDECOWU-ULGWP)[G.R. No. 79526 : December 21, 1990.]

Moreover, while the existence of bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is
community or mutuality of interests. This 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 exercise of their collective
bargaining rights." Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the Sawmill Division and the Logging
Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them
both. There may be difference as to the nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant
the formation of a separate bargaining unit.

Modes in Determining Exclusive Bargaining Representative (Art. 256-259)

Four (4) ways of determining a bargaining agent:


1. voluntary recognition in cases where there is only one legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit;

2. certification election; or

3. run-off election; or

4. consent election.

Voluntary recognition of union. - Voluntary recognition of bargaining agent is the free and voluntary act of the employer of
extending and conferring full recognition to a union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining. This is allowed when there is only one union operating
in the bargaining unit.

Certification election. - refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining.

Run-off election. - refers to an election between the labor unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes when a
certification election which provides for three (3) or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes
cast; provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes
cast.

Consent election. - refers to the election voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the intervention of the
Department of Labor and Employment, to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate
collective bargaining unit.

What is the distinction between consent election and certification election? Consent election is a separate and distinct process
and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election in the sense that the purpose of the latter is to
determine the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit.
Under the substantial mutual interests rule, the employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must
have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they
perform. It is characterized by similarity of employment status, same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar
compensation and working conditions. (San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Confesor, G. R. No. 111262,
Sept. 19, 1996, 262 SCRA 81, 98).

What is a bargaining unit? A “bargaining unit” refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given
employer unit, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific
occupational or geographical grouping within such employer unit.
What are the requisites for certification election in organized establishments?

The following are the requisites for certification election in organized establishments.

1. that a petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60-
day freedom period; chanrobles virtual law library

2. that such petition is verified; and

3. that the petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all employees in the
bargaining unit.

What is the requirement for certification election in unorganized establishments?

In unorganized establishments, certification election shall be "automatically" conducted upon the filing of a petition for
certification election by a legitimate labor organization. However, it must be emphasized that the petitioner-union should
have a valid certificate of registration; otherwise, it has no legal personality to file the petition for certification election.

Who may file petition for certification election?

A petition for certification election may be filed by:

1. a legitimate labor organization; or

2. an employer, but only when requested by a labor organization to bargain collectively and the status of the union is in
doubt.

ROLE OF EMPLOYER IN CERTIFICATION ELECTION CASES:

R. A. No. 9481 [June 14, 2007] amended the Labor Code by introducing the following provisions:

Article 258-A. Employer as Bystander. - In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or
a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a
petition for certification election. The employer’s participation in such proceedings shall be limited to:

(1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and

(2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition.

Article 256

PICOP RESOURCES INC. V. DEQUILLA (2011)

PICOP claims that privaterespondents violated this provision when they campaigned for, supported and signedFFW’s petition for
certification election on March 19 and 20, 2000, before the onset of thefreedom period.It is Article 256 that applies. Based on
the provision, it can be said that while it isincumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of
the incumbentbargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do sowhen no petition for
certification election was filed. The reason is, with a pending petitionfor certification, any such agreement entered into by management
with a labor organizationis fraught with the risk that such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as thecollective bargaining
representative. The provision for status quo is conditioned on the factthat no certification election was filed during the
freedom period. Any other view wouldrender nugatory the clear statutory policy to favor certification election as the means
of ascertaining the true expression of the will of the workers as to which labor organizationwould represent them. An existing
CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certificationelection. When there is a representational issue, the status
quo provision in so far as theneed to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA


PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION

Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent.
It is well-settled that under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid certification election, majority of the
bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast. Prescinding
from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory
employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase – from 321 to 337. Under Article
256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence,
50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170. HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU
was not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the opening of the 17
segregated ballots will not materially affect the outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such
member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable. Having declared that no choice in the
certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off election must be held to determine
which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees.

When to file petition for certification election; general rule.

The general rule is, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the
Labor Code, a petition for certification election may be filed at any time.

What are the exceptions to the general rule?

The exceptions when no certification election may be held are as follows:

1. certification year-bar rule;

2. bargaining deadlock-bar rule; or

3. contract-bar rule.

Elections Bars

What is certification year-bar rule?

Under the certification year-bar rule, a certification election petition may not be filed within one (1) year: (1) from the date
of a valid certification, consent or run-off election; or (2) from the date of voluntary recognition.

What is bargaining deadlock-bar rule?

Under the bargaining deadlock-bar rule, neither may a representation question be entertained if:

1. before the filing of a petition for certification election, the duly recognized or certified union has commenced negotiations
with the employer within the one-year period from the date of a valid certification, consent or run-off election or from the
date of voluntary recognition; or

2. a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the subject of valid notice of strike or lockout.

In the case of Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino [KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN] vs. Trajano, the bargaining deadlock-bar rule
was not applied because the duly certified exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees did not, for more than
four (4) years, take any action to legally compel the employer to comply with its duty to bargain collectively, hence, no CBA
was executed; nor did it file any unfair labor practice suit against the employer or initiate a strike against the latter. Under the
circumstances, a certification election may be validly held.

But in the case of Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees-Unified Filipino Service Workers vs. Laguesma,
[G. R. No. 118915, February 4, 1997, 267 SCRA 503], whose factual milieu is similar to said case of Kaisahan, the
bargaining deadlock-bar rule was applied. It is only just and equitable that the circumstances in this case should be
considered as similar in nature to a ‘bargaining deadlock’ when no certification election could be held. This is also to make
sure that no floodgates will be opened for the circumvention of the law by unscrupulous employers to prevent any certified
bargaining agent from negotiating a CBA. Thus, Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules should be interpreted
liberally so as to include a circumstance, e.g., where a CBA could not be concluded due to the failure of one party to
willingly perform its duty to bargain collectively.”
What is a contract-bar rule?

Under the contract-bar rule, the Bureau of Labor Relations shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any
other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the
parties. The reasons are:

What are the exceptions to the contract-bar rule?

The exceptions to the contract-bar rule are as follows:

1. during the 60-day freedom period;

2. when the CBA is not registered with the BLR or DOLE Regional Offices;

3. when the CBA, although registered, contains provisions lower than the standards fixed by law;

4. when the documents supporting its registration are falsified, fraudulent or tainted with misrepresentation; chanrobles
virtual law library

5.when the collective bargaining agreement is not complete as it does not contain any of the requisite provisions which the
law requires;

6. when the collective bargaining agreement was entered into prior to the 60-day freedom period;

7. when there is a schism in the union resulting in an industrial dispute wherein the collective bargaining agreement can no
longer foster industrial peace.

Distinguish between "contract bar rule" and "deadlock bar rule".

Under the "CONTRACT BAR RULE," a certification election cannot be held if there is in force and in effect a collective
bargaining agreement that has been duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment except during the
freedom period of such CBA which is the 60-day period prior to the expiry date of said CBA. (Articles 231, 253-A and 256)

Under the "DEADLOCK BAR RULE" a certification election can not be held if a bargaining deadlock to which an
incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or mediation or had become the subject
of a valid notice of strike or lockout. (Section 3, Rule XI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the LC)

R. Transport Corporation vs. Laguesma, 227 SCRA 826, G.R. No. 106830 November 16, 1993

When to file—In the absence of collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code,
a petition for certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year
from the date of issuance of a final certification election result. By “final certification election result” is meant that an actual
election, that is, ballots were cast and there was counting of votes that was conducted.

Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees-Unified Filipino Service Workers vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA
503, G.R. No. 118915 February 4, 1997

There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces x x
x. The word is synonymous with the word impasse, which x x x ‘presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining
which, despite noble intentions, does not conclude in agreement between the parties.'" If the law proscribes the conduct of a
certification election when there is a bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration, with more reason should it
not be conducted if, despite attempts to bring an employer to the negotiation table by the certified bargaining agent, there was
“no reasonable effort in good faith” on the part of the employer to bargain collectively.

Palacol vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 182 SCRA 710, G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990

Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of the
union members. Their express consent is required, and this consent must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by
law, which must be followed to the letter. No shortcuts are allowed.
P.I. Manufacturing, Incorporated, vs. P.I. Manufacturing Supervisors and Foremen Association, 543 SCRA 613, G.R.
No. 167217 February 4, 2008

Interestingly, such gap as re-established by virtue of the CBA is more than a substantial compliance with R.A. No. 6640. We
hold that the Court of Appeals erred in not taking into account the provisions of the CBA vis-à-vis the wage increase under
the said law. We believe and so hold that the re-establishment of a significant gap or differential between regular employees
and casual employees by operation of the CBA was more than substantial compliance with the requirements of the several
Wage Orders (and of Article 124 of the Labor Code). That this re-establishment of a significant differential was the result of
collective bargaining negotiations, rather than of a special grievance procedure, is not a legal basis for ignoring it.

Panay Electric Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 248 SCRA 688, G.R. No. 102672 1995)

“No strike, no lock-out” provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a valid stipulation but may be invoked
only by employer when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from
the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself.

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield vs. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428, G.R. No. 113907, 200)0

Union Security Clauses; Due Process; Although union security clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may
be validly enforced and dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental requirement
of due process. An employer cannot rely merely upon a labor federation’s allegations in terminating union officers expelled
by the federation for allegedly committing acts of disloyalty and lor inimical to the interest of the federation and in violation
of its Constitution and By-Laws—the company must also inquire into the cause of the expulsion and whether or not the
federation had sufficient grounds to effect the same.

National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) Dusit Hotel Nikko
Chapter vs. Court of Appeals, 570 SCRA 598, G.R. No. 163942 November 11, 2008

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) correctly held that the Union failed to observe the mandatory periods
before conducting or holding a strike.—The Union failed to observe the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-
day strike ban before it conducted the strike on January 18, 2002. The NLRC correctly held that the Union failed to observe
the mandatory periods before conducting or holding a strike. Union officers may be validly terminated from employment for
their participation in an illegal strike, while union members have to participate in and commit illegal acts for them to lose
their employment status.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs. Confesor, 432 SCRA 308, G.R. No. 114974 June 16, 2004

Surface bargaining is defined as “going through the motions of negotiating” without any legal intent to reach an agreement.
The resolution of surface bargaining allegations never presents an easy issue. The duty to bargain “does not compel either
party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. The duty to bargain “does not compel either party to agree
to a proposal or require the making of a concession.

Santuyo vs. Remerco Garments Manufacturing, Inc., 616 SCRA 333, G.R. No. 174420 March 22, 2010

Article 217 of the Labor Code requires labor arbiters to refer cases involving the implementation of Collective Bargaining
Agreements (CBAs) to the grievance machinery provided therein and to voluntary arbitration. (c) Cases arising from the
interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement
of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.

Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) vs. Magsalin, 650 SCRA 445, June 6, 2011)

A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the Court of Appeals via petition for review under Rule 43.

Teng vs. Pahagac, 635 SCRA 172, G.R. No. 169704 November 17, 2010

The Voluntary Arbitrator’s (VA’s) decision may still be reconsidered on the basis of a motion for reconsideration seasonably
filed within 10 days from receipt thereof; Seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory requirement to
forestall the finality of such decision.