Case Digest Kimberly Labor Union v NLRC Facts: y Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc.

executed a three-year collective bargaining agreement with United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers' Organization which expired on June 30, 1986 Within the 60-day freedom period prior to the expiration of and during the negotiations for the renewal of the aforementioned CBA, some members of the bargaining unit formed another union called "Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and NationalismOrganized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture On April 21, 1986, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification election in Regional Office. KIMBERLY and (UKCEU-PTGWO) did not object to the holding of a certification election but objected to the inclusion of the so-called contractual workers whose employment with KIMBERLY was coursed through an independent contractor, Rank Manpower Company, as among the qualified voters. On June 2, 1986, Med-Arbiter Bonifacio 1. Marasigan, who was handling the certification election case, issued an order declaring the following as eligible to vote in the certification election, thus: 1. The regular rank-and-file laborers/employees of the respondent company consisting of 537 as of May 14, 1986 should be considered qualified to vote; 2. Those casuals who have worked at least six (6) months as appearing in the payroll months prior to the filing of the instant petition on April 21, 1986; and 3. Those contractual employees who are allegedly in the employ of an independent contractor and who have also worked for at least six (6) months as appearing in the payroll month prior to the filing of the instant petition on April 21, 1986. y y y y During the pre-election conference, 64 casual workers were challenged by KIMBERLY and (UKCEU-PTGWO) on the ground that they are not employees, of KIMBERLY but of RANK. It was agreed by all the parties that the 64 voters shall be allowed to cast their votes but that their ballots shall be segregated and subject to challenge proceedings 64 votes were of casual workers were challenged KILUSAN-OLALIA filed with the med-arbiter a "Protest and Motion to Open and Count Challenged Votes" on the ground that the 64 workers are employees of KIMBERLY within the meaning of Article 212(e) of the Labor Code. On July 7, 1986, KIMBERLY filed an opposition to the protest and motion, asserting that there is no employer-employee relationship between the casual workers and the company

Issue: Whether or not the 64 casual workers are considered as regular employees thus are entitled to vote

Decision: The 64 workers are considered as regular employees and are eligible to vote The law provides for two. kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. The individual petitioners who have been adjudged to be regular employees fall under the second category As long as the employee has rendered at least one year of service, he becomes a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed.