Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labour II Case Digest Assignments Midterms
Labour II Case Digest Assignments Midterms
The
petitioner
argues
that
under
this
article,
the
Med-Arbiter
should
automatically
order
election
by
secret
ballot
when
the
petition
is
supported
by
at
least
25%
of
all
employees
in
the
bargaining
unit.
SAMADA
and
PEALU
substantially
complied
with
the
law
when
they
submitted
the
required
consent
signatures
several
days
after
filing
the
petition.
The
petitioner
complains
that
the
dismissal
of
the
petitions
for
certification
election,
including
its
own
petition
for
intervention,
had
the
effect
of
indirectly
certifying
APCWU
as
the
sole
and
exclusive
bargaining
representative
of
the
ICTSI
employees.
Private
respondent
ICTSI
maintains
that
the
dismissal
was
based
on
Article
256
of
the
Labour
Code
as
implemented
by
Section
6,
Rule
V,
Book
V
of
the
Implementing
Rules,
quoted
above.
Moreover,
under
Section
10,
Rule
V,
Book
V
of
the
Implementing
Rules,
decisions
of
the
Secretary
in
certification
election
cases
shall
be
final
and
unappealable.
For
its
part,
APCWU
questions
PWUP's
personality
in
these
proceedings
in
view
of
the
lack
of
consent
signatures
in
its
petition,
and
argues
as
well
that
the
petitioner
has
no
authority
to
represent
SAMADA
or
PEALU,
which
had
not
appealed.
The
private
respondent
also
invokes
Tupas
and
maintains
that
the
ratification
of
the
new
CBA
by
the
majority
of
the
workers
was
an
affirmation
of
their
membership
in
the
union
that
negotiated
that
agreement.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
there
was
indeed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
lack
or
excess
of
jurisdiction
on
the
part
of
public
respondents
when
they
dismissed
the
petitions
for
certification
election
because
the
consent
signatures
had
not
been
submitted
simultaneously
with
the
petition.
Held:
Yes,
there
was
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
Pursuant
to
the
constitutional
provision
guaranteeing
workers
the
right
to
self-organisation
and
collective
bargaining,
"the
constant
and
unwavering
policy
of
the
Court"
has
been
"to
require
a
On
June
17,
1994,
SRBI
filed
with
the
Med-Arbiter
an
urgent
motion
to
suspend
proceedings.
The
Med-Arbiter
denied
the
same.
SRBI
then
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration.
Two
days
later,
the
Med-Arbiter
cancelled
the
certification
election
scheduled
for
June
29,
1994
in
order
to
address
the
motion
for
reconsideration.
The
Med-Arbiter
later
denied
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration.
SRBI
appealed
the
order
of
denial
to
the
DOLE
Secretary.
Petitioner
proceeded
to
file
a
petition
with
the
DOLE
Regional
Office
seeking
the
cancellation
of
the
respondent
union's
registration.
It
averred
that
the
APSOTEU-
TUCP
members
were
actually
managerial
employees
who
were
prohibited
by
law
from
joining
or
organising
unions.
DOLE
Undersecretary
denied
SRBI's
appeal
for
lack
of
merit.
He
ruled
that
APSOTEU-TUCP
was
a
legitimate
labour
organisation.
It
was
fully
entitled
to
all
the
rights
and
privileges
granted
by
law
to
a
legitimate
labour
organisation,
including
the
right
to
file
a
petition
for
certification
election.
He
also
held
that
until
and
unless
a
final
order
is
issued
cancelling
APSOTEU-TUCP's
registration
certificate,
it
had
the
legal
right
to
represent
its
members
for
collective
bargaining
purposes.
SRBI
moved
for
reconsideration
of
the
Undersecretary's
decision
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
Med-Arbiter
may
validly
order
the
holding
of
a
certification
election.
Held:
YES,
may
validly
order
the
holding
of
a
certification
election.
For
one,
the
supervisory
employees
cannot
be
considered
managerial
or
confidential
employees.
While
the
nature
of
the
employees
work
(evaluating
borrowers
capacity
to
pay,
approving
loans,
scheduling
terms
of
repayment
of
the
latter,
and
endorsing
delinquent
accounts
to
legal
counsel
for
collection)
indeed
constituted
the
core
of
the
banks
business,
their
functions
did
not
fall
within
the
definition
of
either
a
managerial
employee
(lay
down
and
execute
management
policies
related
to
labour
relations)
or
a
confidential
employee
(they
did
not
act
in
a
confidential
capacity
to
persons
who
formulate
and
execute
management
policies
related
to
labour
relations).
Secondly,
granting
the
petition
would
not
be
violative
of
the
separation
of
union
doctrine.
The
petition
for
certification
election
was
filed
by
APSOTEU-TUCP,
a
legitimate
labour
organisation.
True,
it
was
assisted
to
some
extent
by
ALU
and
the
national
federation
TUCP.
However,
APSOTEU-TUCP
had
separate
legal
personality
from
ALU
and
TUCP,
under
the
principle
that
a
local
union
maintains
its
separate
legal
personality
despite
affiliation
with
a
national
federation.
SAN
MIGUEL
FOODS,
INCORPORATED,
Petitioner,
v.
SAN
MIGUEL
CORPORATION
SUPERVISORS
and
EXEMPT
UNION,
Respondent.
G.R.
No.
146206
August
1,
2011
PERALTA,
J.:
Facts:
In
G.R.
No.
110399,
entitled
San
Miguel
Corporation
Supervisors
and
Exempt
Union
v.
Laguesma,
the
Court
declared
that
the
employees
belonging
to
the
three
different
plants
of
San
Miguel
Corporation
Magnolia
Poultry
Products
Plants
in
Cabuyao,
San
Fernando,
and
Otis,
having
community
or
mutuality
of
interests,
constitutes
a
single
bargaining
unit.
They
perform
work
of
the
same
nature,
receive
the
same
wages
and
compensation,
and
most
importantly,
share
a
common
stake
in
concerted
activities.
It
was
immaterial
that
the
three
plants
have
different
locations,
as
they
did
not
impede
the
operations
of
a
single
bargaining
representative.
Pursuant
to
the
Court's
decision
in
G.R.
No.
110399,
DOLE-NCR
conducted
pre-
election
conferences.
However,
there
was
a
discrepancy
in
the
list
of
eligible
voters,
i.e.,
petitioner
submitted
a
list
of
23
employees
for
the
San
Fernando
plant
and
33
for
the
Cabuyao
plant,
while
respondent
listed
60
and
82,
respectively.
On
the
date
of
the
election,
September
30,
1998,
petitioner
filed
the
Omnibus
Objections
and
Challenge
to
Voters,
questioning
the
eligibility
to
vote
by
some
of
its
employees
on
the
grounds
that
some
employees
do
not
belong
to
the
bargaining
unit
which
respondent
seeks
to
represent
or
that
there
is
no
existence
of
employer-
employee
relationship
with
petitioner.
Specifically,
it
argued
that
certain
employees
should
not
be
allowed
to
vote
as
they
are
among
others:
(1)
employees
assigned
to
the
live
chicken
operations,
which
are
not
covered
by
the
bargaining
unit;
(2)
employees
who
belong
to
the
Barrio
Ugong
plant;
(5)
non-SMFI
employees;
and
(3)
employees
who
are
members
of
other
unions.
On
October
21,
1998,
the
Med-Arbiter
issued
an
Order
directing
respondent
to
submit
proof
showing
that
the
employees
in
the
submitted
list
are
covered
by
the
original
petition
for
certification
election
and
belong
to
the
bargaining
unit
it
seeks
to
represent
and,
likewise,
directing
petitioner
to
substantiate
the
allegations
contained
in
its
Omnibus
Objections
and
Challenge
to
Voters.
In
compliance
thereto,
respondent
averred
that
(1)
the
bargaining
unit
contemplated
in
the
original
petition
is
the
Poultry
Division
of
San
Miguel
Corporation,
now
known
as
San
Miguel
Foods,
Inc.;
(2)
it
covered
the
operations
in
Calamba,
Laguna,
Cavite,
and
Batangas
and
its
home
base
is
either
in
Cabuyao,
Laguna
or
San
Fernando,
Pampanga;
and
(3)
it
submitted
individual
and
separate
declarations
of
the
employees
whose
votes
were
challenged
in
the
election.
Based
on
the
results,
the
Med-Arbiter
issued
the
Order
dated
April
13,
1999,
stating
that
since
the
Yes
vote
received
97%
of
the
valid
votes
cast,
respondent
is
certified
to
be
the
exclusive
bargaining
agent
of
the
supervisors
and
exempt
employees
of
petitioner's
Magnolia
Poultry
Products
Plants
in
Cabuyao,
San
Fernando,
and
Otis.
On
appeal,
the
then
Acting
DOLE
Undersecretary,
in
the
Resolution
dated
July
30,
1999,
affirmed
the
Order
dated
April
13,
1999,
with
modification
that
four
employees
be
excluded
from
the
bargaining
unit
which
respondent
seeks
to
represent.
She
opined
that
the
challenged
voters
should
be
excluded
from
the
bargaining
unit,
because
the
two
are
members
of
Magnolia
Poultry
Processing
Plants
Monthly
Employees
Union,
while
the
other
two
are
employees
of
San
Miguel
Corporation,
which
is
a
separate
and
distinct
entity
from
petitioner.
Petitioners
Partial
Motion
for
Reconsideration
dated
August
14,
1999
was
denied
by
the
then
Acting
DOLE
Undersecretary
in
the
Order
dated
August
27,
1999.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
employees
of
which
are
working
in
different
locations
have
mutuality
of
interest.
Held:
Yes
they
have.
In
G.R.
No.
110399,
the
Court
explained
that
the
employees
of
San
Miguel
Corporation
Magnolia
Poultry
Products
Plants
of
Cabuyao,
San
Fernando,
and
Otis
constitute
a
single
bargaining
unit,
which
is
not
contrary
to
the
one-
company,
one-union
policy.
An
appropriate
bargaining
unit
is
defined
as
a
group
of
employees
of
a
given
employer,
comprised
of
all
or
less
than
all
of
the
entire
body
of
employees,
which
the
collective
interest
of
all
the
employees,
consistent
with
equity
to
the
employer,
indicate
to
be
best
suited
to
serve
the
reciprocal
rights
and
duties
of
the
parties
under
the
collective
bargaining
provisions
of
the
law.
The
test
of
grouping
is
community
or
mutuality
of
interest.
This
is
so
because
the
basic
test
of
an
asserted
bargaining
units
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
differences
as
to
the
nature
of
their
individual
assignments,
but
the
distinctions
are
not
enough
to
warrant
the
formation
of
a
separate
bargaining
unit.
Thus,
in
the
present
case,
the
Court
affirms
the
finding
of
the
CA
that
there
should
be
only
one
bargaining
unit
for
the
employees
in
Cabuyao,
San
Fernando,
and
Otis
of
Magnolia
Poultry
Products
Plant
involved
in
dressed
chicken
processing
and
Magnolia
Poultry
Farms
engaged
in
live
chicken
operations.
Certain
factors,
such
as
specific
line
of
work,
working
conditions,
location
of
work,
mode
of
compensation,
and
other
relevant
conditions
do
not
affect
or
impede
their
commonality
of
interest.
Although
they
seem
separate
and
distinct
from
each
other,
the
specific
tasks
of
each
division
are
actually
interrelated
and
there
exists
mutuality
of
interests
which
warrants
the
formation
of
a
single
bargaining
unit.