Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID

Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

I. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP and method, free from control and direction of the
1. Concept- contractual in character but impressed with principal in all matters connected with the performance of
public interest, should yield to common good (Civil Code) the work except as to the results thereof.]

2. Four-fold Test - works at his own pleasure, in a manner he sees fit


a. Selection and engagement (Abante v. Lamadrid)
b. Payment of wages
c. Dismissal * Newspaper columnist not an EE of newspaper but
d. Power to Control* independent contractor; hired for unique talent, skill and
experience, PDI not involved in the actual performance
ECONOMIC REALITY TEST – examine prevailing that produced the finished product, did not supply tools
economic realities within activity and between parties; and instrumentalities needed to perform work (Orozco v.
economic dependence of worker on his ER (Orozco v. CA; similar to Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting) BUUUT
CA) “off-camera talents” are NOT independent contractors but
EEs (Fulache v. ABS-CBN)
* CONTROL TEST -- ER has reserved the right to
control not only work to be achieved but the manner II. JOB CONTRACTING and LABOR-ONLY
and method work is to be achieved (LVN Pictures v. CONTRACTING ARRANGMENTS
LVN Musician’s Guild); refers to the existence of the 1. Contracting out is valid as an exercise of management
power not necessarily to its actual exercise (RP v. prerogative for as long as it complies with the limits and
Asiapro) standards provided by the LC. – reduction of EEs in a
company made necessary by the introduction of services
[Exception] Rules that merely serve as guidelines v. of an IC is justified when the IC is undertaken in order to
Rules that fix the methodology and bind or restrict the effectuate more economic and efficient methods of
parties hired to the use of such means and methods production (burden of proof on EEs to show malice and
addressing both result and the means. Ex: arbitrariness) (Asian Alcohol v. NLRC)
1. Insurance agents in the absence of evidence that
rules and regulations issued effectively a. Proof of capitalization and control – the legitimate job
controlled/restricted the agent’s choice of methods contractor must have the capitalization and equipment
of selling insurance (Insular Life v. NLRC) – case to to undertake the sale and distribution of the
case basis manufacturer’s products and must do it on his own
2. Caddies are not employees in the absence of control using its own means and selling methods (Coca-cola v.
(Manila Golf v. IAC) Dela Cruz).

3. Examples where ER-EE exists b. Should be done in good faith, pursuant to the ER’s valid
a. Jeepney operators/owners – jeepney drivers – owner is interest and not for the circumvention of EE’s rights
holder of cert. of public convenience thus must ensure (Temic Automotive v. Temic Automotive Union)
that driver follows prescribed route of the franchising
authority and rules promulgated; drivers perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the c. Contracting out may be done regardless of whether
usual trade of their ER (Jardin v. NLRC) such activity is peripheral or core in nature (Alviado v.
b. Bus company – bus driver (R. Transport v. Ejandra) P&G)
c. Hospital – Resident physicians – specific work
schedules determined by hospital, supervision and 2. Valid Independent Contracting or subcontracting arrangements
monitoring of resident doctors’ work through nursing a. Concept of job-contracting arrangements (Trilateral
supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies, subject to relationship) – (1) contract for a specific job – principal
Code of ethics etc. (Calamba Medical Center v. NLRC) and contractor/subcontractor, (2) contract of
[v. residency training as a pursuit of further employment – contractor and subcontractor
education(UERMMMC v. Laguesma)]
4. No ER-EE relationship but one of Independent Contractor b. Valid job contracting – contractor carries on (1)
Arrangement independent business and (2) has substantial capital or
a. Insurance Co. – Commission agents investment in the tools, equipment, machineries, work
b. Company – colleting agents on commission basis premises and other materials necessary for the conduct
c. Softdrink co. – independent contractors selling of his business.
softdrinks
d. Shoe shine boys c. Permissible job contracting/subcontracting – principal
agrees ti put out or farm out with a
5. EE v. Independent contractor contractor/subcontractor the performance or
[def’n: an independent contractor is one who carries on a completion of a specific job within a definitive period.
distinct and independent business and undertakes to
perform the job, work, or service on its own account and
under its own responsibility according to its own manner
1
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

d. Elements of valid job contracting – Independent 1. Not done in good faith and not justified by the
Business on his own Account under his own exigencies of the business (termination of regular
Responsibility using his own Manner and methods Free employees and reduction of work hours or
from control and direction of principal. Has own reduction/splitting of the bargaining unit)
substantial Capital or investment in the form of Tools, 2. Contarcting out with “cabo” [supplies workers to
Equipment, Machinery, Work premises. Agreement an ER, with or without monetary or other
assures contractual employees entitlement to ALL consideration whether in the capacity oof an
RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. agent of the ER or as an ostensible independent
contractor]
e. Capitalization Requirement; other factors to be 3. Taking undue advantage of the economic
considered – situation or lack of bargaining strength of the
(1) Whether the contractor is carrying on an contractual employee, undermining security of
independent business tenure or basic rights, or circumventing
(2) Nature and extent of work provisions of regular employment
(3) Skill required 4. In-house agency
(4) Term and duration of relationship 5. Directly related to the business or operation of
(5) Right to assign the performance of specified pieces the principal by reason of a strike or lockout
of work whether actual or imminent
(6) Control and supervision 6. Job performed by union members when such will
(7) Power to EP with respect to hiring, firing and interfere with the exercise of the rights to self
payment of workers of the contractor organization.
(8) Control of the premises
(9) Duty ti supply premises, tools, appliances, 4. DOLE Certification as sufficient proof of compliance with
materials and labor requirements – certification gives rise to a presumption that
(10) Mode, manner and terms of payment contractor is a legitimate one [BUUUT when there are
contradictory findings between CA and NLRC/LA, SC
3. Labor-only contracting arrangements prohibited by law may consider other factors in determining WON a
a. Labor-only contracting – (1) no substantial capital or contractor complies with requisite elements of a legitimate
investment, (2) workers recruited are performing subcontracting.
activities which are directly related to the principal
business of ER 5. Effect of Failure to require contractor to post bond (LC Art.
108) – owner of the project must answer for whatever
b. Prohibition – labor-only contractor serves merely as liabilities the contractor may have incurred to his EEs
agent of the ER without prejudice to reimbursement

c. Effects 6. Performing activities “directly related to the main business of


(1) If labor-only – illegal, ER deemed direct ER; the principal” – duties performed are dependent and
intermediary is solidarily liable for all rightful claims integral steps in or aspects of the essential operations of
of EEs (SMC v. MAERC Integrated Services) the principal (Kimberly v. Drilon)
(2) If job contacting – legal. ER is INDIRECT ER and is
made solidarily liable with contractor for a more 7. Where principal exercises control, then Labor-only contracting
limited purpose [payment of unpaid wages and other arrangement – principal has no right to control the conduct
monetary claims; violation of labor standards laws of the EEs as to the means employed to achieve an end;
and ULP]; no ER-EE relationship between owner and not the character of the activities as being “usually
EEs of contractor necessary or desirable in the usual business of the ER”.

d. DOLE D.O. No. 18-02 S. 2002


(1) Mandatory registration of independent contractors III. CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT
– for purposes of establishing an effective labor
market information and monitoring; failure to register
Article 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written
raises presumption of labor-only contracting agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
(2) Other obligations of independent contractor – (1) agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular
produce copy of contract between principal an where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
contractor and contract of employment of contractual which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
employee (2) Annual report [including (a) list of business or trade of the employer, except where the employment
contracts (b) no. of workers covered (c) sworn has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
undertaking that the mandatory government- termination of which has been determined at the time of the
imposed benefits have been made] engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
(3) Effect of non-compliance – delisting of contractors duration of the season.

(4) Job contracting negative list


2
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the for just or authorized causes (Aberdeen Court v.
preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered Agustin Jr.) BUUUUT there is no need to inform
at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or probationary EE that he has to follow company rules
broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the
and regulations. Due process in failure to qualify as
activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists. regular EE does not mean notice and hearing.

*Requiring reasonable standards is management


prerogative as long as exercised in good faith for the
1. As to nature – job/work rendered by EE in relation to the advancement of the ER’s interests (Buiser v. Leogardo)
usual trade of business of the ER
*During the probationary period, EE enjoys security of
a. REGULAR – hired for activities which are necessary or tenure; a probationary EE cannot be terminated except
desirable in the usual trade or business of the ER for just cause during the period (Biboso v. Victoria’s
* REASONABLE CONNECTION RULE – reasonable Milling)
connection between particular activity performed and
its relation to the usual business or trade of the ER. *Probationary EE may be dismissed for cause at any
Connection can be determined by considering the time before expiration of 6mos if found unfit for the job
nature of the work performed and its relation to the provided there is due process; must be given ample
schemes of the particular business or trade in its entirety opportunity to dispute the allegations of poor
(De Leon v. NLRC) performance against him.
*Necessity/desirability is to be assessed in relation to *Burden of proof is upon ER to show just or authorized
the general scheme of the business or undertaking causes of dismissal by substantial evidence
which should be viewed from a perspective of the *Dissatisfaction must be real and in good faith
business or trade in its entirety and not an a confined
scope. (Magsalin v. National Organization of Working *In a situation where the probationary status overlaps
Men) with a fixed-term contract not specifically used for a
fixed term it offers, Art. 281 should assume primacy and
*Repeated rehiring and continuing need for the EE’s the fixed period character of the contract must give way.
services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his services to the ER’s business or NEW RULING: The lapse of an EEs probationary
trade (Baguio Country Club v. NLRC). employment for a fixed term, without the latter’s
subsequent appointment as a regular EE, will effectively
b. PROBATIONARY – hired generally for regular sever the ER-EE relationship between the parties
positions but are placed n a probationary status for a (Robinson’s Supermarket Corp. V. Ranchez)
period of 6 mos; considered regular if they are allowed
to work beyond the probationary period c. PROJECT

*to afford the ER an opportunity to observe the fitness


of the probationary EE at work, and to ascertain d. TERM
whether he will become an efficient and proper EE * A contract of employment for a definite period
(International catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC) terminates by its own terms at the end of such period
(Brent v. Zamora) decisive is the day certain agreed
*Length of time – 6mos [except for: (1) Learnership no upon by the parties for the commencement and
need for special skill  not more than 3 termination of their employment relation. BUUUUT
mos/apprenticeship for highly technical industries  should not be used to preclude tenurial security
more than 3mos; (2) teachers  3y; (3) agreement by - if net effect is to render employment basically at the
parties for a longer term, give chance, based on pleasure of the ER, then it is unlawful (Pakistan
liberality of ER, established to be company policy or is International airlines v. Ople)
necessary because of the nature of the work] - if parties were not on equal footing, the presumption
is that the term contract was entered into to circumvent
*Training period + probation period is double probation right to security of tenure (ex. Hiring workers on the
– ER had ample time ti summarily terminate the EE’s same employment duration after expiration of
services during her period of probation if they were term( Purefoods v. NLRC))
deemed unsatisfactory. Not having done so, the ER may -term contract was executed years after EEs were
dismiss her now only upon proof of legal ground for hired
separation of regular EEs (Holiday Inn v. NLRC).
*CRITERIA – (1) Knowingly and voluntarily agreed
* ER shall make known to the EE at the time he is hired, upon (2) EE and ER dealt with each other on more or
the standards by which he will qualify as a regular EE, less equal terms (Pantranco v. NLRC)
otherwise, he cannot be terminated for failure to comply
with the criteria for regularship, he can only be removed *Termination Nuances
3
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

(1) lack of notice of termination is of no consequence BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION


(pangilinan v. General Milling Corp) EXCEPTION:
(2) Non-renewal of an appointment for a definite and (a) employment qualification is reasonably related
renewable period does not involve dismissal but an to the essential operation of the job involved
expiration of term (b) factual basis for believing that all or
(3) dismissal w/o just cause before expiration of term substantially all persons meeting the qualification
entitles EE to payment of salaries corresponding to the would be unable to properly perform the duties of
unexpired portion of the employment contract. the job

e. SEASONAL DISPARATE TREATMENT – discriminatory on its


f. CASUAL face (ex. No-spouse employment policies requiring EE
of a particular sex to quit)
2. As to rank – hierarchy in the positions
a. MANAGERIAL DISPARATE IMPACT – a facially neutral policy has a
b. SUPERVISORY disproportionate effect on a particular class.
c. RANK-AND-FILE
i. Ban on spouses in same company – Failed to show
how marriage is detrimental or prejudicial to
IV. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES business operations (Star paper v. Simbol)
1. The free will of management to conduct its own business
affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied (Bisig v. ii. Bona fide occupational qualification on stipulations
NLRC) – An ER is free to regulate, according to his against marriage to EE of competitor company –
own discretion and judgment all aspects of relationship of this nature might compromise
employment, including hiring, work assignments, interests of ER. ER only aims to protects its interests
working methods, time, place and manner of work, against the possibility that a competitor company
tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision will gain access to its secrets and procedures
of workers, working regulations, transfer of (Duncan. V. Glaxo Wellcome)
employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and
the discipline, dismissal and recall or work (SMC v. iii. Bona fide occupational qualification re: obesity and
Ople) ER’s weight requirement – weight standards as
continuing qualification of an EE; show ER’s effort
a. EE is given elbow room for profit – to enhance chanes to comply with exacting obligations imposed upon
of making a profit; may be taken as freedom to it by law by virtue of being a common carrier
administer the affairs of the business enterprise such (Yrasegui v. PAL)
that the cost of running it would be below the
expected earnings or receipts (Agustin Chu v. NLRC) c. Non-compete and exclusivity clauses – should not be
contrary to public welfare, and restraint is reasonably
b. Elements for valid exercise – in good faith for the necessary to afford a fair and reasonable protection to
advancement of the ER’s interest and not for the the contracting parties. Test of validity: (1) reasonably
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of necessary for the protection of the contracting parties
the EEs under special laws or under valid agreements and (2) will not affect public interest or service (Red
(SMC v. Layoc) Line Transportation case)

c. Limitations – law, CBA, general principles of fair play d. Qualification and change in law
and justice; a line must be drawn between
management prerogative regarding business e. Discipline of EEs – as controlled by substantive due
operations per se and those which affect the rights of process and tempered by policy of protection to labor.
the EEs. In the latter, EEs should at least be properly Penalty must be commensurate with the act imputed
informed (Abbot v. NLRC). on the EE and imposed in connection with ER;s
disciplinary authority (Farrol v. CA)
2. Examples of the Exercise of Management Prerogatives
a. Hiring of personnel and size of workforce – ER has no f. Transfer of EEs – not motivated by discrimination or
obligation to keep in its payroll more EEs than are bad faith (PT&T v. Laplana); It is the prerogative of
necessary for the operation of its business. the ER to transfer an EE where he can be most useful
Management has the right to terminate an EE for just to the company, an EE who refuses a valid transfer is
or authorized cause. guilty of insubordination (Pharmacia v. UPJOHN).
BUUUT this cannot be used to rid himself of an
b. Terms and conditions upon hiring undesirable EE (Blue Dairy v. NLRC)
*reasonableness and compelling business necessity * when constructive dismissal – unreasonable,
for which no alternative exists other than inconvenient or prejudicial to EE; involves demotion
discriminatory practice of rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other
privileges.
4
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

* EE cannot be promoted without his consent (PT&T a. Definition: group of EEs of a given ER, comprised
v. CA) of all or less than the entire body of EEs, which the
** ER has the burden of proof of valid transfer collective interest of all the EEs, consistent with the
equity to the ER, indicate to be the best suited to
g. Abolish positions and/or downsize personnel serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties
complement under the collective bargaining provisions of the
law.
h. Abolish position due to company reorganization or
merger b. Fundamental Factors: (1) will of EEs [Globe
doctrine], (2) affinity and unity of EEs interest
i. Adoption of redundancy/retrenchment program to [Substantial Mutual Interest Rule - substantial
streamline operations resulting in the reduction of similarity of work and duties, similarity of
manpower complement in order to monimize or avert compensation and working conditions], (3) Prior
losses collective bargaining history, and (4) similarity of
employment status (SMC v. Laguesma)
j. Promotion of EEs
c. Test to determine constituency of a bargaining unit
k. Imposition of productivity standards – “community or mutuality of interests” –
l. Bonus substantial mutual interests in terms of
employment and working conditions
m. Change of working hours
d. Appropriateness of bargaining unit – must effect a
grouping of EEs who have substantial, mutual
V. RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION interests in wages, hours, working conditions and
1. Existence of ER-EE relationship is essential for the other subjects of collective bargaining.
determination of whether or not one may exercise right of
self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining 2. Certification election
2. Rationale for Unionization a. Definition: process of determining the sole and
3. Who may unionize for purposes of collective bargaining exclusive bargaining agent of the EEs in an ABU for
negotiations purposes of collective bargaining
a. Any EE i. v. Consent Election – purpose is to determine the
b. Exceptions issue of majority representation of all workers in
i. Managerial EEs the ABU.
ii. Confidential EEs ii. v. Voluntary Recognition – In unorganized
iii. Government EEs (including GOCCs with original establishments with only one legitimate LO, the
charters) ER may voluntarily recognize the representation
iv. Members of cooperatives status of the union. (submit notice of voluntary
v. EEs of International Organizations or Specialized recognition with Regional Office within 30d from
Agencies such recognition); Effects – enjoy rights,
vi. Aliens w/o valid working permits/ w/ valid privileges and obligations of an existing
working permits but nationals of countries not bargaining agent; bar filing of a petition for
granting Filipinos to exercise right of self- certification election by any LO for 1y, afterwhich
organization and to join/assist Los an LO can file petition for certification election
4. Salient Features of RA 9481 UNLESS a CBA was executed and registered
a. Allows commingling of supervisor’s unions and rank with the Regional Office
and file in same federation iii. Nature – an investigation of a non-adversarial
b. Requirements for registration fact-finding character in which the BLR plays the
i. Independent Union/Federations/National Unions part of a disinterested investigator seeking the
ii. Local of Chapter Federations/National Unions ascertain the desires of the EEs re: their
c. Failure to comply with reportorial requirements shall representation.
no longer be a ground for cancellation of union iv. Objectives: (1) determine ABU, (2) ascertain
registration, but shall subject errant officers/members majority representation of the bargaining
to penalty representative, if EEs desire to be represented at
d. Fewer grounds for cancellation of union registration all by anyone
e. ER is simply a bystander and can no longer oppose or v. Role of ER – [GR] not a party because sole
participate in the certification proceedings concern of workers; [exception: where ER has to
file a petition for certification election when
VI. APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT requested to bargain collectively BUUUT if union
1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit files petition for CE when precluded from doing
so; contract bar rule, deadlock bar rule,
certification year rule, the ER can actively
participate and oppose the petition for CE
5
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

CBA disqualifying them from voting because they


vi. Venue and Jurisdiction: Regional Office having have a substantial interest in the selection of the
jurisdiction over principal office of ER [if bargaining representative. They just need to belong to
different locations, at the option/choice of EEs the bargaining unit (NUWHRAIN v. Secretary of
(Nestle v. NLRC)]; Objection to venue should be Labor).
raised on the first hearing, lotherwise, deemed (2) EEs who were terminated but who filed an illegal
waived. dismissal case in connection therewith – because LC
defines EEs as including one whose employment has
vii. When To file ceased as a result of or in connection with any current
* No CBA/ CBA not registered – Anytime labor dispute
* With duly registered CBA –
- CONTRACT BAR RULE – freedom period *Time of reckoning – date of Med-Arb’s Order
(w/in 60dprior to the expiry of the 5 th year of the granting conduct of certification elections [excpetion:
CBA) [exception: need for industrial stability is when Order is appealed to the Secretary of Labor –
clearly shown to be imperative (Foamtex labor finality of Order dapat]
Union v. Noriel)] - BUUUT additional workers hired pending
- ONE YEAR BAR RULE – within one year appeal of the Med-Arb’s Order are allowed to vote,
from date of issuance of a final certification holding otherwise would disenfranchise EEs hired
election result during the pendency of the appeal
- DEADLOCK BAR RULE – CE can only be
entertained if there is no pending bargaining 5. Retractions, Recantations or Withdrawals
deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration * The best forum to determine whether there were
or had become a subject of a valid notice of strike indeed retractions is the CE itself where the workers
or lockout to ensure stability in the relationshio can freely express their choice in a secret ballot
of the workers and the management (National * made BEFORE filing of petition  presumed
Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry v. voluntary unless there’s convincing proof to the
Trajano) contrary
* made AFTER filing of petition  deemed
viii. Certification Election in an organized involuntary (La Suerte Cigar v. Director of BLR)
establishment
* petition shall contain signatures of at least 25% * Recantations are looked upon with disfavour
of all EEs in ABU – even if not complied with, especially in pro-forma affidavits – Ees not totally free
discretionary on the part of the Med-Arb. If from ER’s pressure, voluntariness becomes suspect
complied with, CE mandatory 9California 9Mariwasa v. Secretary of Labor)
Manufacturing v. Laguesma)
6. Procedure for Certification Election
ix. CE in an Unorganized Establishment (1) Pre-election conference – notice of pre-election
* immediate order for certification election shall conference shall be received 10d from conference;
be issued upon the filing of a petition by a failure to appear considered waiver to be present and
legitimate labor organization (25% consent to question/object to any of the agreements reached.
signature not applicable)
(2) Posting of Notice of Election – at least 10d before
x. Requirements for an unregistered local affiliated actual date of election in 2 most conspicuous places in
with a National Federation to be considered a company premises; shall contain: (a) date and time,
legitimate labor organization so that it can file a (b) names of contending unions, (c) description of the
petition for certification election and be certified bargaining unit and the list of eligible and challenged
as sole and exclusive bargaining agent voters; *cannot be waived
* (GR) local chapter to submit: (1) charter
certificate and (2) constitution and by-laws, roster (3) Certification Election Proper –
of officers and books of accounts [exception: (a) Election Officer shall inspect polling place, ballot
estoppel] boxes and polling booths.
(b) EO shall prepare ballots in English and Filipino
3. Is a Petition to Cancel/revoke registration a Prejudicial or local dialect; ballots shall be signed at the back
Question to the Petition for Certification Election? – NO. by EO and authorized representative of each
At the time union filed petition, it still had the legal contending unions and ER.
personality (Pepsi Cola v. Secretary of Labor) (c) Voter must put a cross (x) or check (/) mark.
(d) Challenging of votes – Eo shall place ballot in an
4. Who can Vote in the Certification Election – envelop which shall be sealed in the presence of
(1) All EEs sought to be represented irrespective of the voter and the reps. Envelopes will be opened
employment status (Reyes v. Trajano); Probationary and question of eligibility passed upon onlny if
EEs allowed to vote even if there is a provision in the the number of segregated voters will materially
alter the results of the election.
6
LABOR LAW REVIEW MEMORY AID
Guiller-Kristoffer Lamug

7. Requirement to Have A Valid Election


50% + 1 of all eligible voters must have casted their
votes

8. Requirement for Certification of the Union


* DOUBLE MAJORITY – majority of all voters cast,
union received majority of all votes cast;
Abstentations are not valid votes

* Failure of Elections – no majority


* Effect – not bar filing of a motion for immediate
holding of another CE within 6mos from date of
declaration of failure of election
* Motion – EO shall schedule conduct of another CE
within 15d from receipt of motion and cause posting
of notice or CE at least 10d before election in 2 most
conspicuous places.

9. Run-Off Elections; Elements and Nuances


(1) between 3 or more choices (NO UNION is a
choice), and no choice receiveing a majority of the
valid votes cast
(2) The total number of votes for all contending
unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast
(3) Between the labor unions receiving the two
highest number of votes

10. Jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship in


Certification Elections – Med-Arb or Secretary of Labor
BUT will not constitute res judicata in an illegal
dismissal case

11. Protests and Other Questions Arising from the Conduct of


the Election
* should be in the minutes, otherwise, deemed
waived
* should be formalized with the Med-Arb within 5d
from close of proceedings otherwise, waived or
abandoned

12. Mixture of Rank and File and Supervisory EEs


* After certificate of registration has been issued, its
legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. It may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation

13. Direct Certification No longer allowed


* Declaration of a union as a sole bargaining
representative of an ABU without election – affirms
superiority of CE. Where a union has filed a petition
for CE, the mere fact that no opposition is made does
not warrant a direct certification (Colgate v. Ople)