LABREL DIGEST PRELIM [Part 2]

Benguet Electric Cooperative

- Beneco protested and submitted a certification showing that only

vs

4 ees who are not members of Beneco (not members of any labor

Ferrer-Calleja

union) are eligible to vote

Beneco Ees Labor Union

- Certification Election was held on Oct. 1, 1986

- BELU garnered 49 out of 83 valid votes cast

Facts:
- June 21, 1985: Beneco Worker's Labor Union (BWLU) filed a

- Beneco protested but the same was dismissed by the med arbiter

Petition for Direct Certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining

and BLR Dir. Ferrer-Calleja

rep of all the rank and file ees of P Beneco, alleging that: (copy)
(SC: Member-consumers of Beneco could form, assist or join a labor
- Beneco Ees Labor Union (BELU) opposed the petition on the

union)

grounds that:
1. It was the sole and exclusive bargaining rep of the sunject

- SG: Agreed with Beneco

workers (order issued by the med arbiter on Oct. 20, 1980)

2. 2 cases against Beneco are pending in the NLRC involving

- P asserts that the Certification Election was null and void because

A. Bargaining deadlock

mem-ees of P Coop who are not eligible to form and join union were

B. Unfair Labor Practice

allowed to vote

Pending these, bars any representation question

- R Dir. and PR BELU submit that mem of a Coop who are also rank
and file ees are eligible to form, assist or join a labor union

- Beneco filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition claiming that:

1. It is a non-profit Electric Cooperative engaged in providing

Issue:

services to its members and patron-consumers

Whether or not BELU can be certified as the sole and

2. Ees sought to be represented by BWLU are not eligible to form,

exclusive baragaining rep of the rank and file ees - NO

join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing because

they are "members and joint owners of the cooperative"

Held:
It cannot be determined if R Union was duly elected by the eligible

- Med-arbiter: Granted the Petition which limited the election

voters of the bargaining unit since "even ees whi are ineligible to

among the rank and file ees of P who are "non-members and

join a labor union within the coop because of their membership

without involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative",

were allowed to vote in the certification election"

they are 37 ees

- On appeal: Dismissed

Only 37 ees are not mem of coop but 83 voted and 49 voted for R
Union

- SC: Dismissed
Issue 2:

Whether or not ees (rank and file) of a coop are qualified to form or

and sales taxes, preferential right to supply their products to

join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining

State agencies and even exemption from the minimum wage

laws.

Held:

- An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a

- 3 Jurisprudence:

member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to

Right to Collective Bargaining is not available to an ee of a coop

who at the same time is a "member and co-owner"

collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain

with himself or his co-owners.

But ees who are not members or co-owners are entitled

- The fact that the mem-ees of P "do not participate in the actual
management of the cooperative" does not make them eligible to
form, assist or join a labor organization

Article 256 of the Labor Code provides, among others, that:

To have a valid, election, at least a majority of all eligible voters
in the unit must have cast their votes.

- Davao City Case: Members of Coop cannot join a labor union

- The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast

based on the fact that as members of the Coop, they are co-owners

shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in

thereof

the unit . . . [Italics supplied.]

"An owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners"

"It is the fact of ownership which disqualifies a member from
joining any labor organization within the Coop, not involvement in
the management"
The Court held in the Davao City case that members-employees
thereof cannot form or join a labor union for purposes of collective
bargaining.
The Court held that:
A cooperative ... 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.
- As above stated, irrespective of the number of shares owned
by each member they are entitled to cast one vote each in
deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative.
- Their share capital earn limited interest.
- They enjoy special privileges as-exemption from income tax