26 Batangas-i Electric Cooperative Labor Union Vs. Young.docx

26 Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Young No. L-62386. November 9, 1988. Doctrine: An employee of a cooperative who is also a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining. Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees.

2.

3.

4. Facts: This case involves 3 separate petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. G.R. No. 62386 1. On June 1,1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (UNION) filed with the Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now DOLE), at San Pablo City, a petition for certification election. 2. The UNION alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the BatangasI Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC) has more or less 150 employees; that the UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file employees of BATELEC for purposes of collective bargaining; that there is no other union existing in BATELEC except the UNION; that there is no certified collective bargaining agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no certification election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the petition. 3. Med Arbiter: allowed the certification election. BATELEC filed MR reasoning that there was a legal impediment to the holding of a certification election considering that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, the officers and members of the union being the owners thereof. 4. Bureau of Labor: granted the appeal, revoked the Med Arbiter’s order. Held that Section 35 of PD 269 shows that employees of an electric cooperative who are also members of the cooperative have no right to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. 5. Union filed this petition, contending that the Director of the Bureau of Labor committed GADALEJ in concluding and finding that employees of an electric cooperative who are at the same time members of the cooperative are not allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes of collective bargaining. G.R. No. 70880 1. Federation of Free Workers filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment in Pampanga a petition for certification election.

5. 6.

Bulacan II Electric Cooperative Inc. (BECO II) filed its answer contending that petition does not comply with the 30% jurisdictional requirement considering that it has a total of 143 EEs, 24 of whom are members of the cooperative, 28 are managerial employees, 3 are confidential employees, 23 are contractual employees and 28 are casual employees, thereby leaving only 37 employees belonging to the rank and file; and that to grant the petition would be violative of Article 244 (now Article 243) of the Labor Code and Section 35 of PD 269. FFW alleges that it has it has complied substantially with the 30% jurisdictional requirement with the 73 signatures it submitted and that there is nothing in the law that prohibits or restricts cooperative members from joining labor organizations. BECO II contended that it is not among those covered by Article 244 of the Labor Code, as amended by BP 70, as it is not a commercial, industrial or agricultural enterprise and neither is it a religious, charitable, medical or educational institution; that since electric cooperatives are subject to the supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration pursuant to PD 269, as amended by PD 1645, BECO II in effect is a government institution; and that there is no representation issue as there is no other labor organization involved except the FFW. Med-Arbiter: allowed certification election. BECO II filed the instant petition contending that the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that under Article 244 (now Article 243) of the Labor Code, members and part owners of electric cooperatives are eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.

G.R. No. 74560 1. On October 1, 1985, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) ALECO I Chapter filed a petition for certification election, alleging, inter alia, that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Albay Electric Cooperative I (ALECO I) is an electric cooperative servicing electricity in the Province of Albay; that ALECO I has 160 employees, more or less, majority of whom are FFW members; that there is no other union existing nor a collective bargaining agreement existing in the cooperative; that no certification election has been held for the past twelve (12) months prior to the filing of the petition. 2. The next month, FFW submitted 63 signatures in support of the petition for certification election. On the same date, counsel for ALECO I employees for a "NO-UNION STAND" intervened and submitted a copy of the ALECO I 1985 budget showing that the said cooperative has a total of 141 rank and file employees. 3. FFW: contends that ALECO I is covered by the LC; that it has a right to organize and be represented by a union; that there is no legal impediment to the holding

4.

5.

6.

of a certification election considering that 63 employees supported the petition. ALECO I: sought dismissal of the petition; alleges that FFW failed to comply with the 30% requirement considering that 112 rank and file employees have manifested in a "declaration" they that do not desire to be represented by any union. Intervenor, ALECO I EEs for a no-union stand: sought dismissal of the petition, alleging that the 30% written consent requirement has not been complied with. It alleged that of the 63 signatories to the petition, 51 are not qualified to join the union as they are members-consumers of the ALECO I and are considered joint owners of the cooperative pursuant to PD 269, and Art. II Sec. I of the revised bylaws of ALECO I. MedArbiter: allowed certification election. On appeal, Director of Bureau of Labor Relations ruled that there was a "clear proof of compliance with the 30% subscription requirement, coupled with the finding that the subscribers to the petition who are members/owners of the respondent cooperative can validly be eligible for union membership."

Issue: Whether or not employees of electric cooperatives are qualified to form or join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. Held: 1.

2.

In the first case: upheld resolution revoking the certification election. a. Minus the rank and file employees, who were also members of BATELEC, there was still a sufficient number to constitute 30% of the bargaining unit as a jurisdictional requirement. b. However, such members are also members-consumers of the cooperative, as admitted by the Union. As such, EEs belonging to the Union are not qualified to form a labor organization and bargain collectively. In the second case: upheld order of medarbiter allowing certification election. a. There was no clear evidence was adduced by petitioner to prove that 28 of its employees are managerial employees. b. Even if the 24 cooperative members, assuming, in gratia argumenti, that all of them supported the petition, are to be deducted from the said 73 employees, there still remain fortynine (49), a sufficient compliance with the 30% jurisdictional requirement provided in the old Article 258 of the Labor Code, the law then prevailing. c. Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.

d.

3.

Ratio: 1.

2.

Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. In the third case: disallowed holding of certification election. a. It is clear from the records in this case that the petitioner ALECO I has 141 rank and file employees. Hence, there are 90 rank and file employees, nonmembers of the cooperative, who may validly form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. b. However, 51 fo them are members of the cooperative. Thus only 12 rank and file EEs were qualified to form, join or assist labor organizations. What is required under the 30% jurisdictional requirement is 27.

Eligibility to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining is governed by Article 243 (formerly Article 244) of the Labor Code. In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, et al, it was held that an employee of a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining. a. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary business concern being run either by persons, partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. b. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. c. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.