TOPIC: Certification Election; Election bars, grounds for dismissal and procedures G.R. No.

L-55674 July 25, 1983 LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, THE LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY PROVINCIAL (Luzon) AND METRO MANILA SALES FORCE ASSOCIATION-NATU, and THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS, respondents. FACTS: Thirty-one local union members of the Metro Manila Sales Force Association (local union) signed a joint letter withdr awing their membership from the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU). Nonetheless, the local union and NATU filed a petition for direct certification or certification election, alleging that among others, 48 of the 68 sales personnel of the La Suerte were members of the local union or no less than 75% of the sales force. La Suerte filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is not supported by at least 30% of the members of the proposed bargaining unit since 31 union members of the alleged 48 sales personnel withdrew prior to the filing of the petition. And 12 from the remaining are not employees but independent contractors. ISSUE: Whether or not the withdrawal of 31 union members from the NATU affected the petition for certification election insofar as the thirty per cent requirement is concerned. RULING: YES. Since the withdrawal was made before the filing of the petition, the presumption is that it was done freely and voluntarily. Otherwise, if it was done after the petition, then the presumption may have been through duress, coercion or for valuable consideration. The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made before the filing of the petition, the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret to the opposite party. Logically, any such withdrawal or retraction shows voluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary. Moreover, it becomes apparent that such employees had not given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the subscription requirement has not been met. When the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is filed, the employees who are supporting the petition become known to the opposite party since their names are attached to the petition at the time of filing. Therefore, it would not be unexpected that the opposite party would use foul means for the subject employees to withdrawal their support. G.R. No. 97020 June 8, 1992 CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ABD FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS (FFW), CALIFORNIA MFG. CORP. SUPERVISORS UNION CHAPTER (CALMASUCO), respondents. FACTS: On May 24, 1990, a petition for certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO). CMC filed an answer that the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it was not supported by the required 25% of all its supervisors and that a big number of the supposed signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors as they have no subordinates to supervise, nor do they have the powers and functions which under the law would classify them as supervisors. ISSUE: whether or not non-supervisors can participate in a supervisor's certification election RULING: YES. CMC's insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing bargaining agents. Compliance with the said requirement need not even be established with absolute certainty. The Court has consistently ruled that "even conceding that the statutory requirement of 30% (now 25%) of the labor force asking for a certification election had not been strictly compiled with, the Director (now the Med-Arbiter) is still empowered to order that it be held precisely for the purpose of ascertaining which of the contending labor organizations shall be the exclusive collective bargaining agent. The requirement then is relevant only when it becomes mandatory to conduct a certification election. In all other instances, the discretion, according to the rulings of this Tribunal, ought to be ordinarily exercised in favor of a petition for certification. G.R. No. 76111 March 14, 1990 EMMANUEL TIMBUNGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO C. CASTRO, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and DELICANO PAJARES, respondents.

FACTS: Emmanuel Timbungco is the president of the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation (Kapisanan), whose members are employees of Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation (AAATC). Within the 60-day period of the freedom period, a new set of officers was elected with Timbungco as the re-elected president without opposition. In the minutes drawn up by the unions secretary, it was recorded that the body agreed to dispense with the formation of a committee on elections (COMELEC) and the preparation of a tally sheet showing the number of votes received by each candidate. Delicano Pajares, a Kapisanan member, filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for election of officers of the Kapisanan. He alleged that he and his co-workers numbered 700, 62% of whom had signed the petition; that the election of officers held on July 15, 1984 was invalid, and they wished to exercise their right to vote for and elect their union officers. ISSUE: Whether or not the election of officers conducted within the freedom period is valid. RULING: YES. The "contract bar rule" which proscribes any certification election during the life of a collective bargaining agreement or any other action which may disturb the administration of said agreement, except during the "freedom period" ( i.e., the period of 60 days prior to the expiration of the agreement) applies. It does not at all appear that the dispensing by the membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or formalities in relation to the election had resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone, or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly, or more importantly, precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers. In the second place, as the Office of the Solicitor General points out, the private respondents' objections to the elections of July 15, 1984 have come too late, and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn the same. Under the Rules implementing the Labor Code, protests against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election proceedings and must be decided by the latter within twenty (20) working days. In this case, the protest against the election was presented to the med-arbiter only after the lapse of almost two (2) years after it was held. And in that interval, no informal protest, oral or written, was ever presented against the election G.R. No. 106830 November 16, 1993 R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVIENIDO E. LAGUESMA. in his capacity as Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, CHRISTIAN LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (CLOP), NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), and ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP), respondents. FACTS: On January 4, 1991, respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines (CLOP), filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of the petitioner. On April 8, 1991, Med-Arbiter A. Dizon dismissed the petition on the ground that the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent did not include all the eligible employees of petitioner. On May 10, 1991, respondent. CLOP rectified its mistake and filed a second petition for certification election. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the second petition and contended that the dismissal of the first petition constituted res judicata. Petitioner argued that respondent CLOP should have interposed an appeal to the dismissal of the first petition and its failure to do so barred it from filing another petition for certification election. Petitioner further argued that the second petition for a certification election by respondent CLOP, NAFLU and ALU-TUCP were barred at least for a period of one year from the time the first petition of CLOP was dismissed pursuant to Section Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended. ISSUE: Whether or not the second petition was barred for one year from the time of the first petition. RULING: NO. Under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended. Said section provides as follows: When to file In the absence of collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year from the date of the issuance of a final certification election result (Emphasis supplied). Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of law. The phrase "final certification election result" means that there was an actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a counting of votes. In this case, there was no

certification election conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a defective petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly included in the collective bargaining unit. QUERY : (no need to include in the digest book) Should the employment status of the members of respondent CLOP who joined the strike must first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted? ANSWER: Employees who participated in the strike, legally remain as such, until either the motion to declare their employment status legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC. [G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999] UST FACULTY UNION (USTFU), GIL Y. GAMILLA, et. al. vs. Dir. BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO JR. of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Med-Arbiter TOMAS F. FALCONITIN of The National Capital Region, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), EDUARDO J. MARIO JR., MA. MELVYN ALAMIS, NORMA COLLANTES, URBANO ALABAGIA, RONALDO ASUNCION, ZENAIDA BURGOS, ANTHONY CURA, FULVIO M. GUERRERO, MYRNA HILARIO, TERESITA MEER, FERNANDO PEDROSA, NILDA REDOBLADO, RENE SISON, EVELYN TIROL and ROSIE ALCANTARA, respondents. FACTS: Respondents are duly elected officers of the UST Faculty Union (USTFU). The union has a subsisting five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employer, the University of Santo Tomas (UST). The CBA is set to expire on 31 May 1998. A general assembly was called to be held on October 5, 1996, to elect USTFUs next set of officers. The members were informed of the constitution of a COMELEC to oversee the elections. The general assembly was held on October 4, 1996. It was attended by members and non-members of USTFU. On this occasion, the petitioners were elected as USTFUs new set of officers by acclamation and clapping of hands. On 11 October 1996, respondents filed the instant petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the results of the 04 October 1996 election. They alleged that the election was spurious for being violative of USTFUs CBL, specifically because the general assembly resulting in the election of appellants was not called by the Board of Officers of the USTFU; there was no compliance with the ten-day notice rule required by Section 1, Article VIII of the CBL; the supposed elections were conducted without a COMELEC being constituted by the Board of Officers in accordance with Section 1, Article IX of the CBL; the elections were not by secret balloting as required by Section 1, Article V and Section 6, Article IX of the CBL, and, the general assembly was convened by faculty members some of whom were not members of USTFU, so much so that non-USTFU members were allowed to vote in violation of Section 1, Article V of the CBL. ISSUE: Whether or not the election held on October 4, 1996 is a certification election, not a union election. RULING: NO. Nor is it a union election. It is not a union election because the procedure laid down in the USTFUs CBL for the election of officers was not followed. It is not a certification election because representation was not the issue, the proper procedure for such election was not followed. The participation of non-union members in the election aggravated its irregularity. Notes: (no need to write this down) A union election is held pursuant to the unions constitution and bylaws, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A union election should be distinguished from a certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining. Specifically, the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. In a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote. Therefore, a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said election. However, the reverse is not always true; an employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a non-union activity.