Labor.docx

SS VENTURES VS. SS VENTURES UNION NOVEMBER 13, 2013 ~ VBDI AZ

S.S. VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. S.S. VENTURES LABOR UNION (SSVLU) AND DIR. HANS LEO CACDAC, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS (BLR), RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008 FACTS: Petitioner S.S. Ventures International, Inc. (Ventures), a PEZA- registered export firm with principal place of business at Phase I-PEZABataan Export Zone, Mariveles, Bataan, is in the business of manufacturing sports shoes. Respondent S.S. Ventures Labor Union (Union) is a labor organization registered with the DOLE.

March 21, 2000, the Union filed with DOLE-Region III a petition for certification election in behalf of the rank-and-file employees

August 21, 2000, Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union’s certificate of registration alleging that the Union deliberately and maliciously included the names of more or less 82 former employees no longer connected with Ventures in its list of members who attended the organizational meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws; that No organizational meeting and ratification actually took place; and the Union’s application for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the rank-and-file employees of Ventures.

Regional Director of DOLE- Region III favored Ventures and resolved to Cancel the Certificate of the union. On appeal, the BLR Director granted the Union’s appeal and reversing the decision of RD. Ventures went to the CA. The CA dismissed Ventures’ petition as well as the MR. Hence, this petition for review

ISSUE: Whether the registration of the Union must be cancelled.

RULING: NO. The right to form, join, or assist a union is specifically protected by Art. XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be abridged. Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered a legitimate labor organization endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organization. While a certificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy with the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining unit, the registration may be canceled or the union may be decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the status of a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Art.

239(a) of the Labor Code, such as fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the adoption or ratification of the union’s constitution and like documents. The Court, has in previous cases, said that to decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents. The evidence presented by Ventures consist mostly of separate hand-written statements of 82 employees who alleged that they were unwilling or harassed signatories to the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting. However these evidence was presented seven months after the union filed its petition for cancellation of registration. Hence these statements partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union’s filing of a petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have said that the employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, it is but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union. The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary weight.

The registration or the recognition of a labor union after it has submitted the corresponding papers is not ministerial on the part of the BLR. It becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 of the Labor Code have been sedulously complied with. If the union’s application is infected by falsification and like serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and its attachments, a union should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. The issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration, in the case at bar, necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities.

The relevance of the 82 individuals’ active participation in the Union’s organizational meeting and the signing ceremonies thereafter comes in only for purposes of determining whether or not the Union, even without the 82, would still meet what Art. 234(c) of the Labor Code requires to be submitted, requiring that the union applicant must file the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.

In its union records on file with this Bureau, respondent union submitted the names of 542 members. This number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the establishment. Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still within 440 or 20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees of the employer Venture.

Whatever misgivings the petitioner may have with regard to the 82 dismissed employees is better addressed in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings during a pre-election conference. The issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration.

For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under Article 239, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SEC. OF LABOR OCTOBE R 25, 2012 ~ VBDI AZ

G.R. No. 181531

July 31, 2009

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION AND ACESITE PHILIPPINES HOTEL CORPORATION

FACTS: A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006 among the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel (the Hotel) with the following results: EMPLOYEES IN VOTERS’ LIST =

353

TOTAL VOTES CAST =

346

NUWHRAIN-MPHC =

151

HIMPHLU =

169

NO UNION =

1

SPOILED =

3

SEGREGATED =

22

In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending unions, petitioner, NUHWHRAIN-MPHC, and respondent Holiday Inn Manila Pavillion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), referred the case back to Med-Arbiter to decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied. 11 votes were initially segregated because they were cast by dismissed employees, albeit the legality of their dismissal was still pending before the Court of Appeals. Six other votes were segregated because the employees who cast them were already occupying supervisory positions at the time of the election. Still five other votes were segregated on the ground that they were cast by probationary employees and, pursuant to the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), such employees cannot vote. It bears noting early on, however, that the vote of one Jose Gatbonton (Gatbonton), a probationary employee, was counted. Med-Arbiter Calabocal ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregatedvotes, specially those cast by the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six supposedly supervisory employees of the Hotel. Petitioner, which garnered 151 votes, appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the votes of the probationary employees should have been opened considering that probationary employee Gatbonton’s vote was tallied. And petitioner averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes, should not be immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the

opening of the 17 segregated ballots would push the number of valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short of the majority which would then become 169. Secretary affirmed the decision of the med-arbiter. In fine, the SOLE concluded that the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper. ISSUES: (1) whether employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be allowed to vote (2) whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent.

HELD:

I. On the first issue, the Court rules in the affirmative.

The inclusion of Gatbonton’s vote was proper not because it was not questioned but because probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other probationary employees should thus also have been counted. As Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja holds:

In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the “labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit. Hence, all rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility in supporting the petition for certification election. The law refers to “all” the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the “bargaining unit.” (Emphasis supplied) For purposes of this section (Rule II, Sec. 2 of Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003), any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization. All other workers, including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other legitimate purposes except collective bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)

The provision in the CBA disqualifying probationary employees from voting cannot override the Constitutionally-protected right of workers to self-organization, as well as the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules on certification elections and jurisprudence thereon.

A law is read into, and forms part of, a contract. Provisions in a contract are valid only if they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

II. As to whether HIMPHLU should be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, the Court rules in the negative. It is well-settled that under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid certification election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast. Prescinding from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase – from 321 to 337. Under Art. 256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence, 50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170.

HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU was not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the opening of the 17 segregated ballots will not materially affect the outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable. It bears reiteration that the true importance of ascertaining the number of valid votes cast is for it to serve as basis for computing the required majority, and not just to determine which union won the elections. The opening of the segregated but valid votes has thus become material. To be sure, the conduct of a certification election has a two-fold objective: to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and to ascertain the majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. It is not simply the determination of who between two or more contending unions won, but whether it effectively ascertains the will of the members of the bargaining unit as to whether they want to be represented and which union they want to represent them. Having declared that no choice in the certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off election must be held to determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees.

PETITION GRANTED.

SAN MIGUEL CORP EMPLOYEES UNION VS SAN MIGUEL PACKING EMPLOYEES UNION . G.R. No. 171153 Topic: Union Registration Requirements

QUICKIE SUMMARY: SM Packing Employees Union is a LOCAL or CHAPTER of PDMP which seeks to be an INDEPENDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION. For its registration AS A CHAPTER, the applicable law to them is the D.O. No. 9 which no longer requires the submission of the names of at least 20% of all its employees in the bargaining unit. San Mig Corp Union claims that SM Packing failed to meet the requirements set forth by Art 234 of the Labor Code which mandates the submission of the 20% names and that the Implementing Rules of D.O. No. 9 is violative of Art 234 of the Labor Code because it provides a less stringent rule (which does not require the submission of the 20% names). SC ruled that the requirements for the registration of an INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION and the requirements for the creation of a LOCAL or CHAPTER are different. Since SM Packing seeks to be a legitimate labor organization, D.O No. 9 is not the one applicable, but Art 234 of the Labor Code.

FACTS:

Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation namely San Miguel Corporate Staff Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP)

Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino. Thereafter, respondent filed three separate petitions for certification election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. All three petitions were dismissed, on the ground that the separate petitions fragmented a single bargaining unit.

Petitioner filed with the DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent’s registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations. Petitioner accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration. It raised allegations that respondent violated Articles 239(a), (b) and (c) and 234(c) of the Labor Code.

DOLE-NCR Regional Director Maximo B. Lim found that respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus, ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations

Bureau of Labor Relations: Reversed DOLE NCR and declared that SM Packing Employees shall hereby remain in the roster of legitimate labor organizations

CA affirmed BLR



Petitioner’s contention: Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article 234(c) of the Labor Code. Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of respondent must be based not on the number of employees of a single division, but in all three divisions of the company in all the offices and plants of SMC since they are all part of one bargaining unit.

Petitioner thus maintains that respondent, in any case, failed to meet this 20% membership requirement since it based its membership on the number of employees of a single division only, namely, the SMPP.

ISSUE: W/N SM Packing Employees met the requirements and thus, must remain a legitimate labor organization

RULING: NO, SM Packing Employees failed to meet the requirement. Hence, they cannot be declared as a legitimate labor organization

RATIO: A perusal of the records reveals that respondent is registered with the BLR as a local or chapter of PDMP. The applicable Implementing Rules (Department Order No. 9) enunciates a two-fold procedure for the creation of a chapter or a local. The first involves the affiliation of an independent union with a federation or national union or industry union. The second, finding application in the instant petition, involves the direct creation of a local or a chapter through the process of chartering. The Implementing Rules stipulate that a local or chapter may be directly created by a federation or national union.

Petitioner insists that Section 3 of the Implementing Rules, as amended by Department Order No. 9, violated Article 234 of the Labor Code when it provided for less stringent requirements for the creation of a chapter or local. Article 234 of the Labor Code provides that an independent labor organization acquires legitimacy only upon its registration with the BLR: xxx 3) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; xxx

It is emphasized that the foregoing pertains to the registration of an independent labor organization, association or group of unions or workers.

However, the creation of a branch, local or chapter is treated differently. This Court, in the landmark case of Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, declared that when an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, as provided under Article 234 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Rule III, Book V of the Implementing Rules, the same is no longer required of a branch, local or chapter. The intent of the law in imposing less requirements in the case of a branch or local of a registered federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union with a federation or national union in order to increase the local unions bargaining powers respecting terms and conditions of labor.

DISPOSITIVE: San Miguel Corp Union won. The Certificate of Registration of San Miguel Packaging Union is ORDERED CANCELLED, and DROPPED from the rolls of legitimate labor organizations.

DOCTRINE: When an unregistered union becomes a branch, local or chapter, some of the requirements for registration are no longer necessary or compulsory. Whereas an applicant for registration of an independent union is mandated to submit, among other things, the number of employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate.