77.

VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION vs LIBERTY COTTON MILLS

GR NO. L-46562 MAR 31, 1978

ISSUE:
Whether or not an application for registration should be denied just because there is alr
eady a registered collective bargaining agent in the company?

RULING:

No. As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registra
tion, it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to so register the union. It suffices then to ord
er that petitioner Union be registered, there being no legal obstacle to such a step and t
he duty of the Bureau of Labor Relations being clear. Then there is this ruling in Philippin
e Labor Alliance Council v. Bureau of Labor Relations that calls for application that “onc
e the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt, as in this case, a certifi
cation election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organization is t
o be the exclusive bargaining representative.” In the meanwhile, if as contended by priv
ate respondent labor union the interim collective bargaining agreement which was ente
red during the pendency of the petition of the petitioner, has much more favorable ter
ms for the workers of private respondent Vassar Industries, then it should continue in fu
ll force and effect until the appropriate bargaining representative is chosen and negotiat
ions for a new collective bargaining agreement thereafter concluded. This is one way of
assuring that both the social justice, and the protection to labor provisions would be eff
ectively implemented without sanctioning an attempt to frustrate the exercise of this Co
urt’s jurisdiction in a pending case.

1
78. ADAMSON AND ADAMSON vs CIR
GR NO. L-35120 JAN 31, 1984

ISSUE:
Whether or not a union is eligible to represent the supervisory employees notwithstand
ing the affiliation of the said union with the same national federation with which the uni
ons of non-supervisors in the company are also affiliated?

RULING:

No. The Court found without merit the contentions of petitioner that if affilation will be
allowed, only one union will in fact represent both supervisors and rank-and-
file employees of the petitioner; that there would be an indirect affiliation of supervisor
s and rank-and-file employees with one labor organization; that there would be
emerging of two bargaining units ; and that the respondent union will loose its independ
ence because it becomes an alter ego of the federation

Also, the CIR correct when it ruled that “The confusion seems to have stemmed from th
e prefix of FFW after the name of the local unions in the registration of both. Nonethele
ss, the inclusion of FWW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates
at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on thei
r own Neither can it be construed that their personalities are so merged with the mothe
r federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways, inde
pendently of the federation. This is borne by the fact that FFW, like other federation is a
legitimate labor organization separate and distinct from its locals and affiliates and to co
nstrue the registration certificates of the aforecited unions, along the line of the Compa
ny’s argument. would tie up any affiliates to the shoe string of the federation.”

The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson, Inc., Sal
esmen Association (FFW), have their own respective constitutions and by-laws.
They are separately and independently registered of each other. Both sent their separat
e proposals for collective bar agreements with their employer. There could be no emplo
yer influence on rank-and-file organizational activities nor there could be any rank and
file influence on the supervisory function of the supervisors because of the representati
on sought to be proscribed.

2
79. DEMOCRATIC LABOR LABOR ASSOC. vs CEBU STEVEDORING CO. INC.
GR NO. 10321 FEB. 28, 1958

ISSUE:
Whether or not there should only be one collective bargaining unit as it was according t
o its past collective bargaining agreement considering there are two sets of employees
or laborers working in respondent company?

RULING:

No. While it may be true that a collective bareaining agreement has for some time exist
ed between the petitioning union and respondent company and the same has served th
e purpose for which it has been concluded, it does not follow that the same situation sh
ould continue even if there are supervening factors that press for a different treatment
or other cogent reasons that would justify a different course in the determination of the
appropriate collections bargaining agency.

Inasmuch, as the basic test of a bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether it will best assu
re to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights, industrial experienc
e indicates that the most efficacious bargaining unit is one which is comprised of constit
uents enjoying a community of interest and economic or occupational unity. This comm
unity of interest is reflected in groups having substantial similarity of work and duties or
similarity of compensation and working conditions.

Another important factor is the precedent history of collective bargaining between the p
roposed bargaining unit and the employer. When this precedent exists, it may be assum
ed that the court will not disturb the composition of a consolidated bargaining unit whic
h has an established existence and has, in its past dealings with the employer, demonstr
ated its service to the collective bargaining purposes of the act. However, where the circ
umstances have been so altered or where the reciprocal relationship of the employer an
d the bargaining unit has been so changed that the past mutual experience in collective
bargaining cannot be reasonably said to establish a reliable guide to the present constit
uency of the bargaining unit, then prior collective bargaining history cannot be consider
ed a factor in the determination. In such an event, the determination must be made enti
rely upon the basis of existing facts and with due consideration to all of the remaining fa
ctors.

3
80. LOPEX SUGAR CORP. vs SEC. OF LABOR
GR NO. 93317 AUG. 1, 1995

ISSUE:
Whether or not a certificate of affiliation is sufficient for the purpose of certification elec
tion?

RULING:

Yes. Indeed, the law did not reduce the Med-Arbiter to an automaton which can
instantly be set to impulse by the mere filing of a petition for certification election.
He is still tasked to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the law are met, and among
the legal requirements is that the petitioning union must be a legitimate labor organizati
on in good standing.

The petition for certification election, in the case at bench, was filed by the NACUSIP-
TUCP, a national labor organization duly registered with the DOLE. The legitimate status
of NACUSIP-TUCP might be conceded; being merely, however, an agent for the local
organization (the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central Supervisory Chapter), the
federation’s bona fide status alone would not suffice. The local chapter, as its principal,
should also be a legitimate labor organization in good standing. The only document exta
nt on record to establish the legitimacy of the NACUSIP-TUCP Lopez Sugar Central
Supervisory Chapter is a charter certificate and nothing else. The instant petition, at leas
t for now, must thus be GRANTED.

4
81. PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs SEC OF LABOR
GR NO. 96425 FEB 4, 1992

ISSUE:
Whether or not a local union need to be a Legitimate Labor Union on despite its issuanc
e of charter certificate?

RULING:

Yes. But while Article 257 cited by the Solicitor General directs the automatic conduct of
a certification election in an unorganized establishment, it also requires that the petitio
n for certification election must be filed by a legitimate labor organization. Article 242 e
numerates the exclusive rights of a legitimate labor organization among which is the rig
ht to be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate c
ollective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.

Meanwhile, Article 212(h) defines a legitimate labor organization as “any labor organizat
ion duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof.” (Emphasis s
upplied) Rule I, Section 1(j), Book V of the Implementing Rules likewise defines a legitim
ate labor organization as “any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and incl
udes any branch, local or affiliate thereof.”

It is important to clarify the relationship between the mother union and the local union.
In the case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., 66 SCRA 5
12 [1975]), the Court held that the mother union, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate,
had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the associati
on, free to serve the common interest of all its members subject only to the restraints i
mposed by the constitution and by-laws of the association. Thus, whereas in this case
the petition for certification election was filed by the federation which is merely an agen
t, the petition is deemed to be filed by the chapter, the principal, which must be a legiti
mate labor organization. The chapter cannot merely rely on the legitimate status of the
mother union.

5
82. VILLAR vs INCIONG
GR NO. L-50283-84 APRIL. 20, 1983

ISSUE:
Whether or not the disaffiliation from its mother union is justified considering it was do
ne during the freedom period?

RULING:

No, it must be supported by the majority of the union members. In the first place, had p
etitioners merely disaffiliated from the. Amigo Employees Union-
PAFLU, there could be no legal objections thereto for it was their right to do so. But wha
t petitioners did by the very clear terms of their “Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan”
was to disaffiliate the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU from PAFLU, an act which they
could not have done with any effective consequence because they constituted the mino
rity in the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU.

Extant from the records is the fact that petitioners numbering ten (10), were among the
ninety-six (96) who signed the “Sama-Samang Kapasiyahan” whereas there are
two hundred thirty four (234) union members in the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU.
Hence, petitioners constituted a small minority for which reason they could not have suc
cessfully disaffiliated the local union from PAFLU. Since only 96 wanted disaffiliation, it c
an be inferred that the majority wanted the union to remain an affiliate of PAFLU and th
is is not denied or disputed by petitioners. The action of the majority must, therefore, pr
evail over that of the minority members.