ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU)

VS. FERRER-CALLEJA
173 SCRA 178
MAY 5, 1989

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 following 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 A LU 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, A LU 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.

HELD:
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 following jurisdictional preconditions are present:

a. 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;

b. proof of majority representation; and

c. 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 self-serving 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 181of the 281workers 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 publc respondent
was correct in finding the CBA to be defective.