Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right To Self Organization DIGESTS
Right To Self Organization DIGESTS
After the ordered certification election was held, BENECO filed Ruling:
a Protest on the same grounds it stated on its motion to The issue of whether or not employees of a cooperative are
dismiss. The med-arbiter dismissed the protest after finding, qualified to form or join a labor organization for purposes of
among others, that the issue as to whether or not member- collective bargaining has already been resolved and clarified
consumers who are employees of BENECO could form, assist in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs.
or join a labor union has already been answered in the Ferrer Calleja, et al. and reiterated in subsequent cases
affirmative by the Supreme Court in one case. This was later wherein the Court had stated that the right to collective
on affirmed by the BLR. Alleging that the BLR director bargaining is not available to an employee of a
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-
owner thereof. With respect, however, to employees who of the bargaining unit since even employees who are
are neither members nor co-owners of the cooperative ineligible to join a labor union within the cooperative
they are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization, because of their membership therein were allowed to vote
collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the in the certification election. Considering the foregoing, the
1987 Constitution and applicable statutes. Court finds that respondent director committed grave abuse of
discretion in certifying respondent union as the sole and
Moreover, the fact that the members-employees of petitioner exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative employees of petitioner cooperative.
does not make them eligible to form, assist or join a labor
organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with REPUBLIC v. ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE
petitioner. The Court's ruling in the Davao City case that
members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for FACTS.
purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that Asiapro, as a cooperative, is composed of owners-members.
as members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As Its primary objectives are to provide savings and credit
such, they cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for facilities and to develop other livelihood services for its
"certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co- owners-members. In the discharge of the aforesaid primary
owners." objectives, respondent cooperative entered into several
Service Contracts with Stanfilco. The owners-members do not
It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not receive compensation or wages from the respondent
involvement in the management thereof, which cooperative. Instead, they receive a share in the service
disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization surplus which Asiapro earns from different areas of trade it
within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of engages in, such as the income derived from the said Service
their participation in the actual management of the Contracts with Stanfilco.
cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or
join a labor organization for the purpose of collective In order to enjoy the benefits under the Social Security Law of
bargaining. 1997, the owners-members of Asiapro in Stanfilco requested
the services of the latter to register them with SSS as self-
Article 256 of the Labor Code provides, among others, that: employed and to remit their contributions as such. Petitioner
To have a valid, election, at least a majority of all eligible SSS sent a letter to respondent cooperative informing the
voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union latter that based on the Service Contracts it executed with
receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified Stanfilco, Asiapro is actually a manpower contractor supplying
as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit . . . employees to Stanfilco and so, it is an employer of its owners-
[Italics supplied.] members working with Stanfilco. Thus, Asiapro should register
itself with petitioner SSS as an employer and make the
In this case it cannot be determined whether or not corresponding report and remittance of premium contributions.
respondent union was duly elected by the eligible voters Despite letters received, respondent cooperative continuously
ignored the demand of petitioner SSS. Respondent struck down for being contrary to law and public policy since it
cooperative alleges that its owners-members own the is apparently being used by the respondent cooperative
cooperative, thus, no employer-employee relationship can merely to circumvent the compulsory coverage of its
arise between them. employees, who are also its owners-members, by the Social
Security Law.
ISSUE. WON an employer-employee relationship exists
between Stanfilco and its owner-members. The four elements in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship are all present in this
HELD. case.
YES. an owner-member of a cooperative can be an employee First. It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is
of the latter and an employer-employee relationship can exist the respondent cooperative which has the exclusive discretion
between them. a cooperative acquires juridical personality in the selection and engagement of the owners-members as
upon its registration with the Cooperative Development well as its team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco.
Authority. It has its Board of Directors, which directs and
supervises its business; meaning, its Board of Directors is the Second. the weekly stipends or the so-called shares in the
one in charge in the conduct and management of its affairs. service surplus given by the respondent cooperative to its
With that, a cooperative can be likened to a corporation with a owners-members were in reality wages, as the same were
personality separate and distinct from its owners-members. equivalent to an amount not lower than that prescribed by
It is true that the Service Contracts executed between the existing labor laws, rules and regulations, including the wage
respondent cooperative and Stanfilco expressly provide that order applicable to the area and industry, they are also given
there shall be no employer-employee relationship between the to the owners-members as compensation in rendering
respondent cooperative and its owners-members. However, services to respondent cooperative’s client, Stanfilco.
the existence of an employer-employee relationship
cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in a Third. it is the respondent cooperative which has the power to
contract, when the terms and surrounding circumstances investigate, discipline and remove the owners-members and
show otherwise. The employment status of a person is its team leaders who were rendering services at Stanfilco.
defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties
say it should be. Fourth and most importantly, it is the respondent cooperative
which has the sole control over the manner and means of
It is settled that the contracting parties may establish such performing the services under the Service Contracts with
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they want, and Stanfilco as well as the means and methods of work. All these
their agreement would have the force of law between them. clearly prove that, indeed, there is an employer-employee
However, the agreed terms and conditions must not be relationship between the respondent cooperative and its
contrary to law, morals, customs, public policy or public owners-members.
order. The Service Contract provision in question must be
Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007] separation of union doctrine. The petition for certification
election was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP,
Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA 517 a legitimate labor organization. True, it was assisted to some
extent by ALU and the national federation TUCP. However,
Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000] APSOTEU-TUCP had separate legal personality from ALU
and TUCP, under the principle that a local union maintains its
FACTS: Sugbuanon Rural Bank employed some 5 separate legal personality despite affiliation with a national
supervisory employees. APSOLTEU-TUCP, federation.
a legitimate labor organization, then filed a petition for
certification election of the said supervisory employees. The
bank opposed the petition on the ground that the supervisory De la Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn., 330 SCRA
employees were actually managerial/confidential employees. 363 [2000]
In addition, the union was represented in the petition by ALU-
TUCP, and since according to the Bank the latter also sought Doctrine: The express exclusion of computer operators and
discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
to represent the rank and file members, granting the petition
employees in the 1986 CBA does not bar any renegotiation for
would violate the principle of separation of unions.
the future inclusion of said employees. During the freedom
period, parties may not only renew the existing CBA but may
also propose and discuss modifications or amendments
ISSUE: Should the petition for certification election be granted,
thereto.
or denied?
Note: Only 1st and 2nd issues are pertinent to our current
topic, but I included the other issues in case Atty. Javier asks.
HELD: It should be granted. For one, the supervisory
employees cannot be considered managerial or confidential
Facts:
employees. While the nature of the employees’ work
1. DLSU and the DLSU Employees Association (Union), which
(evaluating borrowers’ capacity to pay, approving loans,
is composed of regular non-academic rank-and-file employees,
scheduling terms of repayment of the latter, and
entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with a life
endorsing delinquent accounts to legal counsel for collection) span of 3 years (from Dec. 23, 1986 to Dec. 22, 1989).
indeed constituted the core of the bank’s business , their
functions did not fall within the definition of either a managerial 2. During the freedom period (i.e., 60 days before the
employee (lay down and execute management policies related expiration of the CBA), negotiations with the University for a
to labor relations) or a confidential employee (they did not act new CBA were unsuccessful.
in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and 3. The Union filed a NOtice of Strike with the National
execute management policies related to labor relations). Conciliation and Mediatio Board, NCR, but after several
Secondly, granting the petition would not be violative of the
meetings, 5 out of the 11 issues raised in the Notice of Strike file employees, since CSB has a personality separate
were resolved by the parties. A partial CBA was executed. and distinct from DLSU,
Issues:
duration of the CBA 1. W/N the computer operators and the discipline officers
signed it on Nov. 19, 1990, may be considered as confidential employees and should
where a provision on therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit (which is
duration was explicitly composed of rank-and-file employees)
included, the same
became binding between 2. W/N CSB employees should be included in the
the parties. bargaining unit
3. W/N a union shop clause should be included in the parties'
CBA in addition to the existing maintenance of membership
clause
4. W/N the denial of the Union's proposed "last-in-first-out" because DLSU and CSB have their own separate juridical
method of laying-off employees is proper personality.
5. W/N the ruling on salary increases is correct No sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of
the veil of corporate fiction.
6. W/N the denial of the Union's proposals on the reduction of
workload of its president, improved leave benefits, and 3. Yes, a union shop clause should be included in the parties’
indefinite union leave with pay is proper CBA.
The right to join a union includes the right to abstain from
Held/Ratio: joining any union. However, the right to refrain from joining
1. Computer operators and discipline officers are not labor organizations is limited. The legal protection granted to
confidential employees and should be included in the the right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of
bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. law where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a
closed shop, by virtue of which the employer may employ only
DLSU argues that the parties have already previously members of the collective bargaining union, and the
agreed to exclude computer operators and discipline officers employees must continue to be members of the union for the
from the bargaining unit. The Supreme Court held that the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs.
express exclusion of computer operators and discipline
officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in
the 1986 CBA does not bar any renegotiation for the future
inclusion of said employees. During the freedom period, 4. As an exercise of management prerogative, DLSU has
parties may not only renew the existing CBA but may also the right to adopt valid and equitable grounds as basis for
propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. terminating of transferring employees.
Contrary to DLSU's position, the computer operators and A valid exercise of management prerogative is on which,
discipline officers are not confidential employees. The service among others, covers: work assignment, working methods,
record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are time, supervision of workers, transfer of employees, work
clerical and non-confidential in nature. The nature of the job of supervision, and the discipline, dismissal, and real of workers.
discipline officers also reveal that they are not confidential Except as provided for or limited by special laws, an employer
employees. Thus, computer operators and discipline officers is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and
should be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file judgment, all aspects of employment.
employees.
5. The voluntary arbitrator committed GADALEJ in using
2. The CSB employees should be excluded from the DLSU’s proposed budget to deny salary increases.
bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of DLSU,
The standard proof of a company's financial standing is its
financial statements duly audited by independent and credible Issue/Held
external auditors. The financial capability of a company cannot W/N the history of the separate bargaining units of each sales
be based on its proposed budget because a proposed budget offices be conclusive as what constitutes an appropriate
does not reflect the true financial condition of a company and bargaining unit.
the use of such proposed budget as proof of a company's The court held that it is not. First, it defined a bargaining unit
financial condition would be susceptible to abuse by scheming as a “group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
employers who migt be merely feigning dire financial all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent
conditions in their business ventures in order to avoid granting with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to
salary increases and fringe benefits to employees. serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.”
6. The denial of the Union's proposals on the reduction of The factors to determine the appropriate bargaining unit are:
workload of its president, improved leave benefits, and a: the will of the employees (Globe doctrine)
indefinite union leave with pay is proper. b: affinity and unity of the employees interest, such as
There is no justifiable reason for the granting of the same. substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and
working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule)
San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees c: prior collective bargaining history; and
Union vs. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 d: similarity of employment status.
The history is neither conclusive nor decisive in deciding the
Facts: proper bargaining unit. Rather, it is the mutuality or
1. The Northern Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union- commonality of interests. Here, all employees in the Northern
Independent declared its intention to be the sole bargaining Luzon Sales area have common experiences in compensation
unit of all regular employees of Magnolia Dairy Products in the and working conditions.
Northern Luzon Sales area by filing a Petition for Certification The argument that each sales office militates against the
Election before the DOLE. purposes of collective bargaining. Each sales office have
2. This was opposed by the lawyer of San Miguel saying that roughly 55 employees. This goes against the adage “strength
historically, each sales office was represented by one in numbers.”
bargaining unit. However, a substitute lawyer agreed to
consider all sales offices in the sales area as one bargaining German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) vs. CA,
unit. GR No. 152318, 16 April 2009
3. Mediator-Arbiter Benalfre Galang, after the agreed date,
time, and place of the election, certified the union as the sole Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (supra.) 210
and exclusive bargaining agent for the subject employees. SCRA 339
4. San Miguel opposed this anchoring their opposition on the
historical arguments.