ART. 261.

Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary twenty (20) calendar days from the date of submission of the dispute to voluntary
Arbitrators. - The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have arbitration.
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances
The award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining
Arbitrators shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based. It shall be final
Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award
personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. Accordingly,
or decision by the parties.
violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in
character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved Upon motion of any interested party, the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides,
article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant in case of the absence or incapacity of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such Voluntary Arbitrators, for any reason, may issue a writ of execution requiring
agreement. either the sheriff of the Commission or regular courts or any public official whom
the parties may designate in the submission agreement to execute the final
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the
decision, order or award.
Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes, grievances or
matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or ART. 262-B. Cost of voluntary arbitration and Voluntary Arbitrator’s fee. - The
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall provide therein a proportionate
to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective sharing scheme on the cost of voluntary arbitration including the Voluntary
Bargaining Agreement. Arbitrator’s fee. The fixing of fee of Voluntary Arbitrators, whether shouldered
wholly by the parties or subsidized by the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund, shall
ART. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. - The Voluntary Arbitrator or
take into account the following factors:
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and
decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining (a) Nature of the case;
deadlocks.
(b) Time consumed in hearing the case;
ART. 262-A. Procedures. - The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators shall have the power to hold hearings, receive evidences and take (c) Professional standing of the Voluntary Arbitrator;
whatever action is necessary to resolve the issue or issues subject of the dispute, (d) Capacity to pay of the parties; and
including efforts to effect a voluntary settlement between parties.
(e) Fees provided for in the Revised Rules of Court.
All parties to the dispute shall be entitled to attend the arbitration proceedings.
The attendance of any third party or the exclusion of any witness from the
proceedings shall be determined by the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators. Hearing may be adjourned for cause or upon agreement by the
parties.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, it shall be mandatory for the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators to render an award or decision within
 Title VIII
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
AND FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT
IN TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES
Chapter I
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a) It is the policy of the State to
encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining.
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of
collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout,
consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining
agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair
labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of
dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the
existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply
and the union may take action immediately. (As amended by Executive Order No.
111, December 24, 1986).
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and
regulations as the Minister of Labor and Employment may promulgate.
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all
efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the
dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the
mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may
declare a lockout.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in
meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout
must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or
association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the
dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request
of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case,
the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at
least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off
period herein provided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21,
1981 and further amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a
strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work
and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance
of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as
with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right
of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar
medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and all serious
efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted
to substantially minimize, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and
health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and
by management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued
operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of
the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective
skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the
services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients, most
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any
especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such
unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately
officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike
a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for
may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere
compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly
participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued
termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain of
employer during such lawful strike.
immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or
payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other (b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, by force, violence,
affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. coercion, threats or intimidation, any peaceful picketing by employees during any
labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be
bargaining, or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference.
precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable
to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker, nor shall any person be
jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. employed as a strike-breaker.
(h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process, the parties may (d) No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of the New
opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed
person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any individual who seeks
(i) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary
to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in
arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute, as the case may be. The decision of
place of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless
the President, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the
actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein
voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after
shall be interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure
receipt thereof by the parties. (As amended by Section 27, Republic Act No. 6715,
necessary to maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce
March 21, 1989).
the law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24,
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer shall 1986).
declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s
required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote
premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares. (As amended by
first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982).
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the
President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret
ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the
strike. When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the ART. 269. Prohibition against aliens; exceptions. - All aliens, natural or juridical,
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from engaging directly or
indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without prejudice to normal
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and Employment shall also conduct
contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized international labor
a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
centers: Provided, however, That aliens working in the country with valid permits
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of the board of directors or
issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, may exercise the right to
trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a
self-organization and join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for
partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately return
purposes of collective bargaining: Provided, further, That said aliens are nationals
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. (As
agreement. (Incorporated by Section 28, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
amended by Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
ART. 266. Requirement for arrest and detention. - Except on grounds of national
ART. 270. Regulation of foreign assistance. - (a) No foreign individual,
security and public peace or in case of commission of a crime, no union members
organization or entity may give any donations, grants or other forms of assistance,
or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities without
in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly, to any labor organization, group of workers
previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.
or any auxiliary thereof, such as cooperatives, credit unions and institutions
Chapter II engaged in research, education or communication, in relation to trade union
ASSISTANCE TO activities, without prior permission by the Secretary of Labor.
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
"Trade union activities" shall mean:
ART. 267. Assistance by the Department of Labor. - The Department of Labor, at
the initiative of the Secretary of Labor, shall extend special assistance to the (1) organization, formation and administration of labor organization;
organization, for purposes of collective bargaining, of the most underprivileged
(2) negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements;
workers who, for reasons of occupation, organizational structure or insufficient
incomes, are not normally covered by major labor organizations or federations. (3) all forms of concerted union action;
ART. 268. Assistance by the Institute of Labor and Manpower Studies. - The (4) organizing, managing, or assisting union conventions, meetings, rallies,
Institute of Labor and Manpower Studies shall render technical and other forms referenda, teach-ins, seminars, conferences and institutes;
of assistance to labor organizations and employer organizations in the field of
labor education, especially pertaining to collective bargaining, arbitration, labor (5) any form of participation or involvement in representation proceedings,
standards and the Labor Code of the Philippines in general. representation elections, consent elections, union elections; and

(6) other activities or actions analogous to the foregoing.

(b) This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations, grants or other forms
of assistance, in cash or in kind, given directly or indirectly to any employer or
employer’s organization to support any activity or activities affecting trade unions.
Chapter III
FOREIGN ACTIVITIES
(c) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and
control the giving and receiving of such donations, grants, or other forms of
assistance, including the mandatory reporting of the amounts of the donations or
grants, the specific recipients thereof, the projects or activities proposed to be
supported, and their duration.

ART. 271. Applicability to farm tenants and rural workers. - The provisions of this
Title pertaining to foreign organizations and activities shall be deemed applicable
likewise to all organizations of farm tenants, rural workers, and the like: Provided,
That in appropriate cases, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform shall exercise the
powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in the Secretary of Labor.

Chapter IV
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION

ART. 272. Penalties. - (a) Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 264
of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) nor more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and/or imprisonment
for not less than three months nor more than three (3) years, or both such fine
and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Prosecution under this provision
shall preclude prosecution for the same act under the Revised Penal Code,
and vice versa.

(b) Upon the recommendation of the Minister of Labor and Employment and the
Minister of National Defense, foreigners who violate the provisions of this Title
shall be subject to immediate and summary deportation by the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation and shall be permanently barred from re-entering
the country without the special permission of the President of the Philippines. (As
amended by Section 16, Batas Pambansa Bilang 130 and Section 7, Batas
Pambansa Bilang 227).

(1)Grievance Procedure
Q: What is grievance machinery?
A: It refers to the mechanism for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. It is part of the continuing process of
collective bargaining (CB).
Note: It is a must provision in any CBA and no collective agreement can be registered in the absence of
such procedure.
Q: How is grievance machinery established?
A:
1. Agreement by the parties
2. A grievance committee – composed of at least 2 representatives each from the members of the
bargaining unit and the employer, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties – shall be
created within 10 days from the signing of CBA
Note: Although Art. 260 of the Labor Code mentions “parties to a CBA”, it does not mean that a grievance
machinery cannot be set up in a CBA-less enterprise. In any workplace where grievance can arise, a
grievance machinery can be established.
Q: What is grievance procedure?
A: It refers to the internal rules of procedure established by the parties in their CBA which usually
consists of successive steps starting at the level of the complainant and his immediate supervisor
and ending, when necessary, at the level of the top union and company officials and with voluntary
arbitration as the terminal step.
Q: What will happen to grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled
within 7 calendar days from the date of their submission?
A: They shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA. ( Art. 260,
par.2, Labor Code)
Either party may serve notice upon the other of its decision to submit the issue to voluntary
arbitration (VA):
1. If the party upon whom such notice is served fails/refuses to respond within 7 days from
receipt, VA/panel designated in the CBA shall commence arbitration proceedings
2. If the CBA does not designate or if the parties failed to name the VA/panel, the regional branch of
NCMB appoints VA/panel
(2)Voluntary Arbitration
Q: What is voluntary arbitration?
A: It refers to the mode of settling labor management disputes by which the parties select a
competent, trained and impartial third person who shall decide on the merits of the case and whose
decision is final and executory. (Sec.1 [d], Rule II, NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the
Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings, Oct. 15, 2004)
Q: What is the difference between compulsory and voluntary arbitration?
A: Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the
government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their
dispute through arbitration by a 3 rd party. The essence of arbitration remains since a resolution of a
dispute is arrived at by resort to a disinterested third party whose decision is final and binding on
the parties, but in compulsory arbitration, such a third party is normally appointed by the
government.
Under voluntary arbitration, on the other hand, referral of a dispute by the parties is made,
pursuant to a voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement, to an impartial third person
for a final and binding resolution. Ideally, arbitration awards are supposed to be complied with by
both parties without delay, such that once an award has been rendered by an arbitrator, nothing is
left to be done by both parties but to comply with the same. After all, they are presumed to have
freely chosen arbitration as the mode of settlement for that particular dispute. Pursuant thereto,
they have chosen a mutually acceptable arbitrator who shall hear and decide their case. Above all,
they have mutually agreed to be bound by said arbitrator's decision. (Luzon Dev’t Bank v. Ass’n of
Luzon Dev’t Bank Ees, G.R. No. 120319, Oct. 6, 1995)
Q: What is the basis for voluntary arbitration and its rationale?
A: The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers
and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall
enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace (Sec. 3, Art. XIII, 1987
Constitution).
(3 )No Strike-No Lockout Clause
Q: When does the No Strike-No Lockout clause in the CBA apply?
A: The “no strike-no lockout” clause in the CBA applies only to economic strikes. It does not apply to
ULP strikes. Hence, if the strike is founded on an unfair labor practice of the employer, a strike
declared by the union cannot be considered a violation of the no strike clause. (Master Iron Labor
Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 92009, Feb. 17, 1993)
(4)Labor Management Council
Q: What is the role of the Department of Labor and Employment in the creation of Labor
Management Councils?
A: The Department shall promote the formation of labor-management councils in organized and
unorganized establishments to enable the workers to participate in policy and decision-making
processes in the establishment, insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and
welfare, except those which are covered by collective bargaining agreements or are traditional areas
of bargaining.
The Department shall promote other labor-management cooperation schemes and, upon its own
initiative or upon the request of both parties, may assist in the formulation and development of
programs and projects on productivity, occupational safety and health, improvement of quality of
work life, product quality improvement, and other similar schemes. (Sec. 1, Rule XXI, Book V, IRR)
Q: How is the representative in the Management Council Selected?
A: In organized establishments, the workers’ representatives to the council shall be nominated by
the exclusive bargaining representative. In establishments where no legitimate labor organization
exists, the workers representative shall be elected directly by the employees at large. (Sec. 2, Rule
XXI, Book V, IRR)
Q: What is the automatic renewal clause of CBAs?
A: Although a CBA has expired, it continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new
CBA has been entered into (Pier & Arrastre Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Confessor, G.R. No. 110854,
February 13, 1995). This is so because the law makes it a duty of the parties to keep the status quo
and to continue in full effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new
agreement is reached by the parties. (Art. 253, LC). (2008 Bar Question)
Q: What may be done during the 60-day freedom period?
A: 1. A labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union only
during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA.
2. Either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify agreement at least 60-days prior to
its expiration period.
3. A petition for certification election may be filed.
Q: When to file CBA?
A: Within 30 days from execution of CBA.
Q: What are the requirements for registration?
A: The application for CBA registration shall be accompanied by the original and 2 duplicate copies
of the following req’ts:
1.CBA
2.A statement that the CBA was posted in at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment
concerned for at least 5 days before its ratification
3.Statement that the CBA was ratified by the majority of the Ees in the bargaining unit.
Note: The following documents must be certified under oath by the representative of the Er and the
labor union. No other document shall be required in the registration of the CBA.
(7 ) Affiliation and Disaffiliation of the Local Union from the Mother Union
Q: How is a local chapter created?
A: A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local/ chapter by issuing a
charter certificate indicating the establishment of a local/chapter.
1.The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification
election from the date it was issued a charter certificate
2.The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization
(LLO) only upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate:
a. Names of the chapter’s officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the chapter
b. Chapter’s constitution and by-laws
c. Where the chapter’s constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or
the national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly
3.The genuineness and due execution of the supporting requirements shall be:
a. Certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the local/chapter, and
b. Attested to by its president (Sec.2[e], Rule III, Book V, IRR, as amended by D.O. 40-F-03)
Note: Under the LC and the rules, the power granted to LOs to directly create a chapter or local
through chartering is given to a federation or national union only, not to a trade union center.
(SMCEU v. San Miguel Packaging Products Ees Union, G.R. No. 171153, Sep. 12, 2007)
Q: Where is the application for registration filed?
A:1. Independent labor unions, chartered locals or worker’s associations – It is filed with the
Regional Office (RO). where the applicant principally operates. It shall be processed by the Labor
Relations Division at the RO.
2. Federations, national unions or worker’s association operating in more than one region – It is filed
with the BLR of the RO, but shall be processed by the BLR.
Q: What is the duty of the BLR after a LO had filed the necessary papers and documents for
registration?
A: It becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the req’ts under Art. 234 of the LC have been
sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious
irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and the supporting
documents, a LO should be denied recognition as a LLO. (Progressive Dev’t Corp.‐Pizza Hut v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 115077, April 18, 1997)
Q: Within what period should the BLR act on the applications submitted before it?
A: It shall act on all applications for registration within 10m days from receipt either by:
1. Approving the application and issuing the certificate of registration/acknowledging the
notice/report; or
2. Denying the application/notice for failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements for
registration/notice (D.O. 40‐03, Rule IV, Sec.4, series of 2003)
Note: All requisite documents shall be:
1. Certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the organization, as the case may be and
2. Attested to it by its President.
Q: May the BLR review the issuance of a certificate of registration?
A: No. The BLR has the duty to review the application for registration not the issuance of a certificate
of registration.
Q: Why is a lesser requirement imposed for a chartered local?
A: The intent of the law in imposing lesser req’ts in the case of branch or local of a registered
federation or national union is to encourage the affiliation of a local union in order to increase the
local union’s bargaining power respecting terms and conditions of labor. (Progressive Dev’t Corp v.
SLE, G.R. No. 96425, Feb. 4, 1992)
Q: What are the requirements before a federation can be issued a certificate of registration?
A: The application for registration of federations and national unions shall be accompanied by the
following documents:
1. A statement indicating the name of the applicant labor union, its principal address, the name of
its officers and their respective addresses;
2. The minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list of Ees who participated in the said
meeting(s);
1. The annual financial reports if the applicant union has been in existence for 1 or more years,
unless it has not collected any amount from the members, in which case a statement to this
effect shall be included in the application;
2. The applicant union's constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the
list of the members who participated in it. The list of ratifying members shall be dispensed with
where the constitution and by-laws was ratified or adopted during the organizational
meeting(s). In such a case, the factual circumstances of the ratification shall be recorded in the
minutes of the organizational meeting(s);
1. The resolution of affiliation of at least 10 LLOs, whether independent unions or chartered
locals, each of which must be a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent in the
establishment where it seeks to operate; and
2. The name and addresses of the companies where the affiliates operate and the list of all the
members in each company involved. (D.O. 40‐03, Rule, III, Sec. 2‐B, series of 2003)
Q: What are the requirements for affiliation?
A: The report of affiliation of independently registered labor unions with a federation or national
union shall be accompanied by the following documents:
1. Resolution of the labor union's board of directors approving the affiliation;
2. Minutes of the general membership meeting approving the affiliation;
3. The total number of members comprising the labor union and the names of members who
approved the affiliation;
4. The certificate of affiliation issued by the federation in favor of the independently registered
labor union; and
5. Written notice to the employer concerned if the affiliating union is the incumbent bargaining
agent. (D.O. 40‐03, Rule, III, Sec. 7, series of 2003)
Q: What is the effect of affiliation?
A: The labor union that affiliates with a federation is subject to the laws of the parent body under
whose authority the local union functions. The constitution, by-laws and rules of the mother
federation, together with the charter it issues to the local union, constitutes an enforceable contract
between them and between the members of the subordinate union inter se. Thus, pursuant to the
constitution and by-laws, the federation has the right to investigate and expel members of the local
union. (Villar v. Inciong, G.R. No. L‐50283‐84, April 20, 1983)
Q: May a local union disaffiliate from the federation?
A:
GR: A labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form an independent union only
during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA.
XPN: Even before the onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such
disaffiliation must be effected by the majority of the union members in the bargaining unit.
Note: This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part of the majority of the
members of the union. In such a case, however, the CBA continues to bind the members of the new or
disaffiliated and independent union up to determine the union which shall administer the CBA may be
conducted. (ANGLO‐KMU v. Samahan ng Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills at J.P.
Coats, G.R. No.118562, July 5, 1996)
Q: What is the limitation to disaffiliation?
A: Disaffiliation should be in accordance with the rules and procedures stated in the constitution and
by-laws of the federation. A local union may disaffiliate with its mother federation provided that
there is no enforceable provision in the federation’s
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union. (Tropical Hut Ees Union v. Tropical Hut, G.R.
Nos. L‐43495‐99, Jan. 20, 1990)
Note: A prohibition to disaffiliate in the Federation’s constitution and by-laws is valid because it is
intended for its own protection.
Q: What is the effect of cancellation of registration of a federation or a national union?
A:
GR: It shall operate to divest its locals/chapters of their status as LLO.
XPN: Locals/chapters retain status as LLO if they arecovered by a duly registered CBA.
Note Locals or chapters who retained status as LLO shall be allowed to register as independent unions. If
they fail to register, they shall lose their legitimate status upon the expiration of the CBA.
Q: PSEA is a local union in Skylander company which is affiliated with PAFLU. PSEA won the
certification election among the rank and file Ees of the Skylander company but its rival union
PSEA-WATU protested the results. Pending the resolution of such controversy, PSEA disaffiliated
with PAFLU and hence affiliated with NCW which was supported by its members. May a local
union disaffiliate with its mother federation pending the settlement of the status as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent?
A: Yes. The pendency of an election protest does not bar the valid disaffiliation of the local union
which was supported by the majority of its members.
The right of a local union to disaffiliate with the federation in the absence of any stipulation in the
constitution and by-laws of the federation prohibiting disaffiliation is well settled. Local unions
remain as the basic unit of association, free to serve their own interest subject to the restraints
imposed by the constitution and by-laws of national federation and are free to renounce such
affiliation upon the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement which brought such affiliation
to existence. In the case at bar, no prohibition existed under the constitution and by-laws of the A: It is where there occurs a shift in the Ees union allegiance after the execution of a collective
federation. Hence, the union may freely disaffiliate with the federation. (Philippine Skylanders v. bargaining (CB) contract with the Er, the Ees can change their agent (labor union) but the CB
contract which is still subsisting continues to bind the Ees up to its expiration date. They may
NLRC, G.R. No. 127374, Jan. 31, 2002) however, bargain for the shortening of said expiration date.

Q: Distinguish between an independently registered and unregistered chartered local union. Note: The Er cannot revoke the validly executed CB contract with their Er by the simple expedient of
changing their bargaining agent. The new agent must respect the contract. (Benguet Consolidated Inc. v.
CHARTERED LOCAL UNION BCI Ees and Worker’s Union‐PAFLU, G.R. No. L‐24711, April 30, 1968)
Independently Registered Unregistered
It cannot be invoked to support the contention that a newly certified CB agent automatically assumes all
How to affiliate?
the personal undertakings of the former agent-like the “no strike clause” in the CBA executed by the latter.
By signing contract of affiliation By application of with the federation for the
issuance of a charter certificate to be submitted to
(8)Union Dues and Special Assessments
the BLR
(a) Union Dues
Effect of Disaffiliation to the union (local)
Q: What are union dues?
Would not affect its being a LLO and therefore it Would cease to be LLO and would no longer have
A: These are regular monthly contributions paid by the members to the union in exchange for the
would continue to have legal personality and to the legal personality and the rights and privileges
benefits given to them by the CBA and to finance the activities of the union in representing the
posses all rights and privileges of LLO. granted by law to LLO, unless the local chapter is
union.
covered by its duly registered CBA.
Effect of Disaffiliation to the CBA
An existing CBA would continue to be valid as the LO The CBA would continue to be valid. The local
Q: What is check-off?
can continue administering then CBA. chapter will not lose its personality, unless it
registers a new.
A: It is a method of deducting from an Ee’s pay at a prescribed period, the amounts due the union
Entitlement to union dues after Disaffiliation for fees, fines and assessments.
LO entitled to the union dues and not the federation Union dues may no longer be collected as there
from which the LO disaffiliated. would no longer be any labor union that is allowed Deductions for union service fees are authorized by law and do not require individual check-off
to collect such union dues from the Ees. authorizations.

Q: What is the form of the decision of the denial of application for registration? Q: What is the nature and purpose of check-off?

A: It shall be: A: Union dues are the lifeblood of the union.

1. In writing
2. Stating in clear terms the reason for the decision All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees, union dues, assessments and fines
3. Applicant union must be furnished a copy of said decision. and other contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and hospitalization benefits,
welfare fund, strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings.(Art. 277[a])
Q: Is the denial of registration appealable?
A: Yes. Q: What are the requisites of a valid check-off?
1. Decisions of the Regional Office shall be appealable to the BLR and CA.
2. The BLR’s decisions on cases appealed from Regional Director are final and not appealable to the A:
SLE. GR: No special assessments, atty’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be
3. Decisions of the BLR denying the registration of a LO (federation or national union) is appealable checked off from any amount due to an employee (Ee) without individual written authorization
to the SLE within 10 days from receipt of the decision, on grounds of: duly signed by the Ee.
a. Grave abuse of discretion; or
b. Gross incompetence.
4. Decision of SLE appealable to CA. The authorization should specifically state the:
(a)Substitutionary Doctrine 1. Amount
2. Purpose &
Q: What is the substitutionary doctrine? 3. Beneficiary of the deduction.
 (Union Dues) By written resolution approved by
XPNs: By obtaining the individual written majority of all the members at the
1. For mandatory activities under the LC authorization duly signed by the Ee which meeting called for that purpose.
2. For agency fees must specify:
3. When non-members of the union avail of the benefits of the CBA: 1. Amount
a. Non-members may be assessed union dues equivalent to that paid by union members; 2. Purpose
b. Only by board resolution approved by majority of the members in general meeting called for 3. Beneficiary
the purpose.
Exception to such requirement
(b) Special Assessments (Agency fees) No exception; written resolution is
Q: What are special assessments or extraordinary fees? Not necessary when: mandatory in all instances.
1. For mandatory activities under the LC
A: These are assessments for any purpose or object other than those expressly provided by the 2. For agency fees
3. When non-members of the union avail of
labor organization’s constitution and by-laws.
the benefits of the CBA:
a. Said non-members may be assessed union
Q: What are the requisites for a valid levy of special assessment or extraordinary fees?
dues equivalent to that paid by union
A: 1. Authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all members at the general membership members;
meeting duly called for that purpose; b. Only by Board resolution approved by
2. Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting, which must include the: majority of the members in general meeting
a. List of members present called for the purpose
b. Votes cast
c. Purpose of the special assessments
d. Recipient of such assessments;
3. Individual written authorization to check-off duly signed by the Ee concerned – to levy such Q: Are Ees who are members of another union considered free riders?
assessments.
A: No. When the union bids to become the bargaining agent, it voluntarily assumes the
Q: What is the effect of failure to strictly comply the requirements set by law? responsibility of representing all the Ees.
A: It shall invalidate the questioned special assessments. Substantial compliance of the requirements
is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of Unfair Labor Practice in Collective Bargaining
union members. (Palacol v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 85333, Feb. 26, 1990) c. ULP in Collective Bargaining

Q: Who has jurisdiction over check-off disputes? Q: What are the forms of ULP in bargaining?
A: Being an intra-union dispute, the Regional Director of DOLE has jurisdiction over check off 1. Failure to meet and convene
disputes. 2. Evading the mandatory subjects of bargaining.
3. Bad faith in bargaining (boulwarism), including failure to execute the CBA if requested
4. Gross violation of the CBA
5. Surface Bargaining
6. Blue sky bargaining

Note: Violations of CBA, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as ULP but a
grievance under CBA. (Art. 261, LC, Silva v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110226, June 19 1997)

Q: Distinguish check-off from special assessments Q: When is there refusal to bargain?

A: A union violates its duty to bargain collectively by entering negotiations with a fixed purpose of
A: Check-off Special Assessment not reaching an agreement or signing a contract.
How approved
Q: What is featherbedding/ make work activities? 1.Economic strike – used to secure the economic demands such as higher wages and better working
conditions for the workers
A: It refers to the practice of the union or its agents in causing or attempting to cause an employer 2.ULP strike – protest against ULP of management
(Er) to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver money or other things of value, in the nature of an
exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, as when a union demands Q: Distinguish between an economic strike and an ULP strike.
that the Er maintain personnel in excess of the latter’s requirements.
ECONOMIC STRIKE ULP STRIKE
As to nature
Note: It is not featherbedding if the work is performed no matter how unnecessary or useless it may be.
Voluntary strike because the Ee will declare a Involuntary strike; the LOis forced to go on strike
Q: What is the sweetheart doctrine? strike to compel management to grant its because of the ULP committed against them by
demands the Er. It is an act of self-defense since the Ee’s
A: It is when a LO asks for or accepts negotiations or atty’s fees from employers as part of the are being pushed to the wall and their only
settlement of any issue in CB or any other dispute. remedy is to stage a strike
Who will initiate
Note: The resulting CBA is considered as a “sweetheart contract” – a CBA that does not substantially The CB agent of the appropriate bargaining unit Either the CB agent or the LLO in behalf of its
improve the employees wages and benefits and whose benefits are far below than those provided by law. can declare an economic strike members
As to the cooling‐off period
Q: What is blue-sky bargaining? 30 days from notice of strike before the intended 15 days from the filing of the notice of strike
date of actual strike subject to the 7-day strike
A: It is defined as making exaggerated or unreasonable proposals. ban
As to the exception to the cooling‐off period
Note: Whether or not the union is engaged in blue-sky bargaining is determined by the evidence No exception – mandatory The cooling-off period may be dispensed with,
presented by the union as to its economic demands. Thus, if the union requires exaggerated or Note: notice of strike and strike vote may be and the union may take immediate action in
unreasonable economic demands, then it is guilty of ULP. (Standard Chartered Bank v. Confessor, G.R. No. dispensed with; they may strike immediately case of dismissal from employment of their
114974, June 16, 2004) officers duly elected in accordance with the
union’s constitution and by-laws, which may
Q: What is surface bargaining? constitute union busting where the
existence of the union is threatened. It must still
A: It is the act of going through the motions of negotiating without any legal intent to reach an observe the mandatory 7-day strike ban period
agreement. It involves the question of whether or not the Ers conduct demonstrates an before it can stage a valid strike
unwillingness to bargain in good faith or is merely hard bargaining. (Standard Chartered Bank v.
Confessor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004)
Q: What are the different forms of strike?
Note: Occurs when the Er constantly changes its position over the agreement.
A:
1. Legal Strike-one called for a valid purpose and conducted through means allowed by law.
Q: What is a lockout? 2. Illegal Strike-one staged for a purpose not recognized by law, or if for a valid purpose,
A: It means any temporary refusal of an Er to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor conducted through means not sanctioned by law.
dispute. (Art.212[p]) 3. Economic Strike- one staged by workers to force wage or other economic concessions from the
employer which he is not required by law to grant (Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil.
Q: When does lockout or closure amount to ULP? vs. Marsman, G.R. No. L‐17038, July 31, 1964)
A: A lockout, actual or threatened, as a means of dissuading the Ees from exercising their rights is 4. ULP Strike-one called to protest against the employer’s acts of unfair practice enumerated in
clearly an ULP. However, to hold an Er guilty, the evidence must establish that the purpose was to Article 248 of the Labor Code, as amended, including gross violation of the collective bargaining
interfere with the Ees exercise of their rights. agreement (CBA) and union busting.
5. Slow Down Strike-one staged without the workers quitting their work but by merely slackening
a.Forms of Concerted Activities or by reducing their normal work output.
Q: What are the types of strike? 6. Wild‐Cat Strike-one declared and staged without filing the required notice of strike and without
A: the majority approval of the recognized bargaining agent.
7. Sit Down Strike-one where the workers stop working but do not leave their place of work.

b.Who may declare a strike or lockout
Q: Who may declare a strike or lockout?
A:
1. Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a strike in cases of
bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. Likewise, the employer may declare a lockout in
the same cases.
2. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor
organization in the establishment may declare a strike but only on the ground of unfair labor
practice. (Section 2, Rule XIII Book V,
c.Requisites for a valid strike/ lockout
Q: What are the requisites of a lawful strike / lockout?
A: The requirements for a valid strike or lockout are as follows:
1. It must be based on a valid and factual ground;
2. A strike or lockout NOTICE shall be filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) at least 15 days before the intended date of the strike or lockout if the issues raised are
unfair labor practices, or at least 30 days before the intended date thereof if the issue involves
bargaining deadlock.
3. In cases of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute UNION BUSTING where the existence of
the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately after the strike vote is conducted and the result thereof submitted to the
Department of Labor and Employment.
4. A strike must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the Union and a lockout must
be approved by a majority vote of the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or
Association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for
that purpose.
5. A strike or lockout VOTE shall be reported to the NCMB-DOLE Regional Branch at least 7 days
before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period.
6. In the event the result of the strike/lockout ballot is filed within the cooling-off period, the 7-
day requirement shall be counted from the day following the expiration of the cooling-off
period. (NSFW vs. Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982)
In case of dismissal from employment of union officers which may constitute union busting, the time
requirement for the filing of the Notice of Strike shall be dispensed with but the strike vote
requirement, being mandatory in character, shall “in every case” be complied with.
7. The dispute must not be the subject of an assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, a certification for compulsory arbitration, or submission to
compulsory or voluntary arbitration nor a subject of a pending case involving the same grounds for the
strike or lockout.
Q: What are the valid grounds for declaring a strike or lockout?
A: The law recognizes 2 grounds for the valid exercise of the right to strike or lockout, namely:
1.Collective Bargaining Deadlock (CBD)-economic;
2.Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)-political
Note: It is possible to change an economic strike into a ULP strike. (Consolidated Labor Ass’n of the Phils. v.
Marsman and Co., G.R. No. L-17038, July 31, 1964)
Violations of CBA must be gross to be considered as ULP.
Q: What is conversion doctrine?
A: It is when a strike starts as economic and later, as it progresses, it becomes a ULP, or vice versa.
Q: Can a strike be converted into a lockout?
A: No, a strike cannot be converted into a pure and simple lockout by the mere expedient of filing before
the trial court a notice of offer to return to work during the pendency of the labor dispute between the
union and the employer. (Rizal Cement Workers Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L-18442, Nov. 30, 1962).
Q: Give examples of strike and explain their legality.
A:1.Sit-down strike – Characterized by a temporary work stoppage of workers who seize or occupy
property of the Er or refuse to vacate the premises of the Er.
Illegal – Amounts to a criminal act because of the Ee’s trespass on the premises
of the Er
2. Wildcat strike – A work stoppage that violates the labor contract and is not authorized by the
union.
Illegal –Because it fails to comply with certain req’ts of the law, to wit: notice of
strike, vote and report on strike vote
3. Slowdown – Strike on an installment plan; an activity by which workers, without complete
stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel
management to grant their demands
Illegal – Ees work on their own terms; while the Ees continue to work and
remain in their positions and accept wages paid to them, they at the same time
select what part on their allotted tasks they care to perform on their own
volition or refuse openly or secretly
4. Sympathetic strike – Work stoppages of workers of one company to make common cause with
other strikers or other companies without demands or grievances of their own against the Er
Illegal – There is no labor dispute between the workers who are joining the
strikers and the latter’s Er
5. Secondary strike – Work stoppages of workers of one company to exert pressure on their Er so Stationary picket, the use of means like placing of objects to constitute permanent blockade or to
that the latter will in turn bring pressure upon the Er of another company with whom another union effectively close points of entry or exit in company premises are prohibited by law.
has a labor dispute
Illegal – There is no labor dispute involved.
Note: A strike can validly take place only in the presence of and in relation to a labor
dispute between Er and Ee.

6. Welga ng bayan (Cause Oriented Strikes) – A political strike and therefore there is neither
a bargaining deadlock nor any ULP
Illegal – It is a political rally

7. Quickie strikes‐ brief and unannounced temporary work stoppage

Illegal‐ failure to comply with notice requirements and etc.

Q: What is a strike?
A: It means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. (Sec.1 [uu], Rule I, Book V, IRR)
It shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns,
attempt to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.
(Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicion Lines v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 140992, Mar. 25, 2004)

Q: What is the purpose of a strike?

A: A strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea behind a
strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or
activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed. (Phil. Can Co. v. CIR, G.R. No. L‐3021, July 13, 1950)

Q: What is a lockout?
A: It means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor
dispute. (Art. 212 [p])

Q: What is picketing?
A: It is the act of marching to and fro the employers premises which is usually accompanied by the
display of placard and other signs, making known the facts involved in a labor dispute.
The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. If peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed
even in the absence of Er-Ee relationship. (PAFLU v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L‐25878, Mar. 28, 1969)

Q: Is the right to picket an absolute right?

A: No, while peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, the courts are
not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the
parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interests, and to insulate establishments or
persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
(Liwayway Pub., Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, G.R. No. L‐25003, Oct. 23, 1981)

The right to peaceful picketing shall be exercised by the workers with due respect for the rights of NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY vs TRAJANO
others. No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation. (Medialdea, 1992)
QUICK FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioner National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines
(NACUSIP)-TUCP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank
and file workers of Calinog Refinery Corporation. Private respondent Federation of
Unions of Rizal (FUR)-TUCP is a labor organization duly registered with the
Department of Labor and Employment while private respondent by virtue of the
certification election held on March 30, 1981.
On July 14, 1982, Calinog Refineries Employees Union (CREU)-NACUSIP, the
certified exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file workers of
Calinog Refinery Corporation opted for voluntary arbitration (VA) after filing a
petition for deadlock in collective bargaining with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (MOLE).
A few days after, on July 21, 1982, Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR)-TUCP filed
with the Regional Office No. VI, MOLE (now DOLE), Iloilo City a petition for
certification election, alleging that:
(1) about 45% of CREU's employees had disaffiliated from CREU-NACUSIP ang
joined FUR-TUCP;
(2) no election had been held for the past twelve (12) months; and
(3) while petitioner union had been certified as the sole collective bargaining
agent, for over a year it failed to conclude a collective bargaining agreement.
CREU-NACUSIP filed a motion to intervene.
ACTING MED-ARBITER Militante: dismissed the petition for certification election
for lack of merit since the petition is barred by a pending bargaining deadlock.
FUR-TUCP appeals to Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), Manila.
BLR DIRECTOR Cresenciano B. Trajano: sets aside the decision of Militante and
remands case to Regional Office VI, Iloilo City for hearing and reception of
evidence.
MED-ARBITER Demetrio Correa: ifo FUR-TUCP. A new election should be held
within 20 days from receipt of the order. CREU-NACUSIP appeals to the BLR.
While it is still on appeal, a new CBA between the company and CREU-NACUSIP
was entered and executed by the management of the National Sugar Refineries
Co., Inc. and petitioner union and was subsequently ratified by a majority of the
rank and file employees. On the basis of this CBA, the Labor Arbiter Celerino
Grecia II issued an award adopting the submitted agreement as the CBA between
the parties.
BLR DIRECTOR Cresenciano B. Trajano: affirms with qualification the order of Med-
Arbiter Correa. He says that since 75% of the workers are now affiliated with FUR-
TUCP, thus, CREU-NACUSIP's status as sole and exclusive bargaining representative
is now of doubtful validity, and therefore a new certification election is in order.
CREU-NACUSIP files MR. MR denied, thus this petition. Note: Solgen posits that
CBA concluded on September 10, 1983 has a life span of three (3) years and
constitutes a bar to the petition for certification election pursuant to Section 3 of
the Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.
ISSUE: WON a petition for certification election may be filed during the pendency
of a bargaining deadlock submitted to arbitration or conciliation?
RULING: NO, it may not be filed. Dir. Trajano committed a grave abuse of
discretion when he ordered a certification election during the pendency of a
bargaining deadlock. is Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code says:
"SECTION 3.When to file. — In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement
duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election may be filed at any time. However, no certification election
may be held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification
election result. Neither may a representation question be entertained if, before
the filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an
incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of valid notice or strike or
lockout.
"If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with
Article 231 of the code, a petition for certification election or a motion for
intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date
of such agreement."

The rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election in the following
cases:

(1)during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement except within the

freedom period;

(2)within one (1) year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final
certification election result; or

(3)during the existence of a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or

certified bargaining agent is a party and which had been submitted to conciliation
or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.

The Deadlock Bar Rule provides that a petition for certification election can only
be entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
lockout. The principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the
workers and the management.

In this case, a bargaining deadlock was already submitted to arbitration when

private respondent FUR-TUCP filed a petition for certification election.

Dir. Trajano’s decision is nullified and the order of Med-Arbiter Militante

dismissing the petition for certification election is reinstated.

KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO v. BLR DIRECTOR TRAJANO

and VIRON GARMENTS
1991 / Narvasa
Bars to certification election > One year bar / certification year rule

FACTS
In 1981, by virtue of a BLR Resolution, the National Federation of Labor
Unions (NAFLU) was declared the exclusive bargaining representative of
all rank-and-file employees of Viron Garments (VIRON).
In 1985, More than four years later, another union, the Kaisahan ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL Katipunan), filed with the BLR a petition
for certification election among VIRON employees. The petition allegedly
counted with the support of more than thirty percent (30%) of VIRON
workers. NAFLU opposed the petition.
The Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be held, after
ascertaining that KAMPIL had complied with all the requirements of law
and that since NAFLU’s certification in 1981, no CBA was executed.
NAFLU contended that at the time the petition for certification
election was filed, it was in process of collective bargaining with VIRON;
that there was in fact a deadlock in the negotiations which had prompted
it to file a notice of strike; and that these circumstances constituted a bar
to the petition for election in accordance with Section 3, Rule V, Book V of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.1
BLR director Trajano set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and
dismissed KAMPIL's petition for certification election. The delay in the
negotiations was attributed to the exhaustion of all legal remedies in the
representation question twice initiated in the company before the filing of
the present petition, as well as to the management who had been
resisting the representations of NAFLU in collective bargaining. It also
considered the fact that NAFLU underwent a strike to bring management
to the negotiation table.
ISSUE & HOLDING
WON KAMPIL's petition for certification election is barred. NO
1
SEC. 3. When to file. — In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement
submitted in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification
election may be filed at any time. However, no certification election may be held
within one year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification
election result. Neither may a representation question be entertained if, before the
filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an
incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
lockout.
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in
accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a
motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiry date of such agreement.
RATIO
The prohibition imposed by law on the holding of a certification election
"within one year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final
certification election result' — in this case, from the date of the
Resolution declaring NAFLU the exclusive bargaining representative— can
have no application here. That one-year period—known as the
"certification year" during which the certified union is required to
negotiate with the employer, and certification election is prohibited—has
long since expired.
Prior to the filing of the petition for election, there was no
bargaining deadlock which was submitted to conciliation or arbitration or
had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. There are
assertions by NAFLU that its attempts to bring VIRON to the negotiation
table had been unsuccessful because of the latter's recalcitrance and
unfulfilled promises to bargain collectively, but there is no proof that it
had taken any action to legally coerce VIRON to comply with its statutory
duty to bargain collectively. It could have charged VIRON with unfair labor
practice; but it did not. It could have gone on a legitimate strike in protest
against VIRON's refusal to bargain collectively and compel it to do so; but
it did not. There are assertions by NAFLU, too, that its attempts to bargain
collectively had been delayed by continuing challenges to the resolution
pronouncing it the sole bargaining representative in VIRON; but there is
no adequate substantiation thereof, or of how it did in fact prevent
initiation of the bargaining process between it and VIRON.
The fact is that from the time that NAFLU was proclaimed the
exclusive bargaining representative until the time KAMPIL filed its
petition for certification election, no CBA was ever executed, and no
deadlock ever arose from negotiations between NAFLU and VIRON
resulting in conciliation proceedings or the filing of a valid strike notice.
VIRON adverts to a strike declared by NAFLU for its [VIRON]
refusal to bargain and for violation of terms and conditions of
employment, and to another strike staged in connection with a claim of
violation of said agreement,. However, these activities took place after
KAMPIL initiated the certification election case, and it was grave abuse of
discretion to have regarded them as precluding the holding of the
certification election prayed for.
BLR Resolution is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER OF CONCERNED EMPLOYEES-UNIFIED FILIPINO
SERVICE WORKERS, (CMC-ACE-UFSW) vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA,
Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment; CAPITOL
MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS
AND CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER INCORPORATED AND DRA. THELMA CLEMENTE,
President, respondents., G.R. No. 118915,; Feb 4, 1997.
FACTS:
Respondent union filed petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter
granted the petition for certification election. Respondent Capitol Medical Center
(CMC) appealed to the Office of the Secretary. But the Order granting the
certification election was affirmned.
On December 9, 1992, elections were held with respondent union garnering 204
votes, 168 in favor of no union and 8 spoiled ballots out of a total of 380 votes
cast. Med-Arbiter issued an Order certifying respondent union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees at CMC.
Respondent CMC again appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor the result
of the election, it was denied. MR also denied. Respondent CMC’s contention was
the supposed pendency of its petition for cancellation of respondent union’s
certificate of registration. In the said case, the Med-Arbiter therein issued an
Order which declared respondent union’s certificate of registration as null and
void. However, this order was reversed on appeal by the Officer-in-Charge of the
BLR in her Order. The said Order dismissed CMC’s motion for cancellation of the
certificate of registration of respondent union and declared that it was not only a
bona fide affiliate or local of a federation, but a duly registered union as well.
Respondent union, after being declared as the certified bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees of respondent CMC, presented proposals for the
negotiation of a CBA. However, CMC contended that CBA negotiations should be
suspended in view of the Order declaring the registration of respondent union as
null and void. In spite of the refusal of respondent CMC, respondent union still
persisted in its demand for CBA negotiations, claiming that it has already been
declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
of the hospital.
Due to respondent CMC’s refusal to bargain collectively, respondent union filed a
notice of strike and later staged a strike on April 15, 1993. The case was certified
to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
It is at this point that petitioner union, on March 24, 1994, filed a petition for
certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of the Capitol
Medical Center Inc. It alleged in its petition that: 1) three hundred thirty one (331)
out of the four hundred (400) total rank-and-file employees of respondent CMC
signed a petition to conduct a certification election; and 2) that the said
employees are withdrawing their authorization for the said union to represent
them as they have joined and formed the union Capitol Medical Center Alliance of
Concerned Employees (CMC-ACE). They also alleged that a certification election
can now be conducted as more that 12 months have lapsed since the last
certification election was held.
Respondent union opposed the petition and moved for its dismissal. It contended
that it is the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the
Hospital, which was confirmed by the Secretary of DOLE and by this Court. It also
alleged that it was not negligent in asserting its right as the certified bargaining
agent for it continuously demanded the negotiation of a CBA with the hospital
despite the latter’s avoidance to bargain collectively.
May 12, 1994, Med-Arbiter Brigida Fadrigon, issued an Order granting the petition leverage for its failure to bargain with respondent union. We can only conclude
for certification election among the rank and file employees. On appeal by that CMC was unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with respondent
respondent union, the public respondent Laguesma reversed and favored the union. CMC has not at any instance shown willingness to discuss the economic
respondent union. Hence this petition. proposals given by respondent union.

ISSUE:
Was there a bargaining deadlock between CMC and respondent union.
RULING:
While it is true that one year had lapsed since the time of declaration of a final
certification result, and that there is no collective bargaining deadlock, public
respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled in respondent
union’s favor since the delay in the forging of the CBA could not be attributed to
the fault of the latter.
It is only just and equitable that the circumstances in this case should be
considered as similar in nature to a “bargaining deadlock” when no certification
election could be held. This is also to make sure that no floodgates will be opened
for the circumvention of the law by unscrupulous employers to prevent any
certified bargaining agent from negotiating a CBA. Thus, Section 3, Rule V, Book V
of the Implement Rules should be interpreted liberally so as to include a
circumstance, e.g. where a CBA could not be concluded due to the failure of one
party to willingly perform its duty to bargain collectively.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

After respondent union was certified as the bargaining agent of CMC, it invited
the employer hospital to the bargaining table by submitting its economic proposal
for a CBA. However, CMC refused to negotiate with respondent union and instead
challenged the latter’s legal personality through a petition for cancellation of the
certificate of registration which eventually reached this Court. The decision
affirming the legal status of respondent union should have left CMC with no other
recourse but to bargain collectively; but still it did not. Respondent union was left
with no other recourse but to file notice of strike against CMC for unfair labor
practice with the NCMB. This eventually led to a strike.

A “deadlock” is the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage; There is a

deadlock when there is a complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action
of equal and opposed forces. The word is synonymous with the word impasse,
which presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which, despite
noble intentions, does not conclude in agreement between the parties.

Although there is no “deadlock” in its strict sense as there is no “counteraction” of

forces present in this case nor “reasonable effort at good faith bargaining,” such
can be attributed to CMC’s fault as the bargaining proposals of respondent union
were never answered by CMC. In fact, what happened in this case is worse than a
bargaining deadlock for CMC employed all legal means to block the certification of
respondent union as the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file; and use it as its

SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PERMEX VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
G.R. No. 107792
[March 2, 1998]
A certification election was conducted among employees of respondent Permex
Producer and Exporter Corporation with ‘No Union’ winning [NFL lost]. Later
however, some employees of Permex Producer formed a labor organization
known as the Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) which
they registered with the Department of Labor and Employment and then
affiliatedwith the Philippine Integrated Industries Labor Union (PIILU). (SMP-PIILU)
wrote the respondent company requesting recognition as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of employees at the Permex Producer and was granted.
They then entered into a CBA. A year later, NFL filed gain for a petition for
certification election but was dismissed. Two arguments are put forth in support
of the petition. First, it is contended that petitioner has been recognized by
the majority of the employees at Permex Producer as their
sole collective bargaining agent. Petitioner argues that when a group of
employees constituting themselves into an organization and claiming to represent
a majority of the work force requests the employer to bargain collectively, the
employer may do one of two things.
First, if the employer is satisfied with the employees’ claim the employer may
voluntarily recognize the union by merely bargaining collectively with it. The
formal written confirmation is ordinarily stated in the collective bargaining
agreement.
Second, if on the other hand, the employer refuses to recognize the union
voluntarily, it may petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification
election. If the employer does not submit a petition for certification election, the
union claiming to represent the employees may submit the petition so that it may
be directly certified as the employees’ representative or a certification election
may be held.
HELD
Challenged decision AFFIRMED. The case of Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v.
Ferrer-Calleja is particularly apropos: “. . . Ordinarily, in an unorganized
establishment like the Calasiao Beer Region, it is the union that files a petition for
a certification election if there is no certified bargaining agent for the workers in
the establishment. If a union asks the employer to voluntarily recognize it as the
bargaining agent of the employees, as the petitioner did, it in effect asks the
employer to certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees — A
CERTIFICATION WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE, for it is the
employees’ prerogative (not the employer’s) to determine whether they want a
union to represent them, and, if so, which one it should be.” In accordance with
this ruling, Permex Producer should not have given its voluntary recognition to
SMP-PIILU-TUCP when the latter asked for recognition as
exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of the company. The
company did not have the power to declare the union the exclusive
representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining. It is not
enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees. It is
equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given
the opportunity to express himself.
Effect
One Union Only
 thereon from March 5, 1963. The Court found that the union had declared a strike
in violation of a so-called "no-strike clause" in the parties collective bargaining
agreement then in force, to the effect that "there shall be no strikes, walkout,
stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, secondary boycotts x x during the term
of the agreement"; and that the strike had caused injury to the employer.

The Court of Industrial Relations, on the other hand, had assumed jurisdiction of
the strike-allegedly staged in protest against unfair labor practices of the company
(in relation more particularly to the disciplinary suspension of a member of the
Union's Board of Directors)- and had directed the strikers to return to work
pending final resolution of the controversy.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Manila Court of First Instance.
Invoking PAFLU v. Tan1 it overruled the Union's objections to the Lower Court's
jurisdiction, declaring that actions for recovery of damages for breach of contract
were not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations but of the civil
courts, even those growing out of a labor dispute. It also rejected the Union's
Republic of the Philippines
argument that since its officers had been cleared of responsibility by the Trial
SUPREME COURT
Court, "exemption from liability of ordinary members and the union follows
Manila
necessarily," the officers having been exempted from personal liability upon a
FIRST DIVISION finding that they had merely acted in the union's behalf. The Appellate Court
finally turned down the claim that "acceptance (by the management) of the
G.R. No. L-31390 April 15, 1988
strikers ... to their former positions ... renders the question of strike legality moot
FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, petitioner, and academic," the claim having been asserted for the first time only on appeal.
vs.
In a bid to overthrow the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and that of the Court
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and the HONORABLE COURT
of First Instance thereby sustained, the Union has appealed to this Court
OF APPEALS, respondents.
by certiorari. It contends in its petition for review that —

NARVASA, J.:
Naught but application of established and familiar precedent is what is needful to
terminate the proceedings at bar.
On complaint of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, hereafter,
simply, PLDT, the Manila Court of First Instance rendered judgment condemning
the labor organization representing the company's employees, the Free Telephone
Workers Union, to pay actual damages amounting to P95,925.00, with 6% interest
1) the CFI had no jurisdiction over the complaint for ages for breach of a contract
resulting from a decision of the CIR in a labor dispute certified to it by the
President of the Philippines, specially where that court is still in process of
determining the legality of the strike alleged to constitute the breach and
consequently, the right of the strikers to continue in employment;
2) the case had become academic when the strikers were accepted back to work;
3) the CFI erred in holding the UNION hable for damages, because the applicable
law, R.A. 875, limits penalty for illegal strikes; and
4) it was error to declare the Union liable for acts of its officers who had been ASIDE; all the proceedings in Civil Case No. 53282 of the latter Court are declared
found to have given the order to strike in good faith, and who were exempted null and void, and the case is DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.
from any liability.
Teehankee, C.J., Cruz, Gancayco and Griño‐Aquino, JJ., concur.
In Holganza va. Apostol, 2 this Court passed upon the question of jurisdiction over
actions for the recovery of damages in connection with labor disputes, and there
declared that-

... As far back as Associated Labor Union v. Gomez, the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Court of Industrial Relations in disputesof this character was upheld. "To hold
otherwise," as succinctly stated by theponente, Justice Sanchez, "is to on split
jurisdiction-which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice." Then in
Progressive Labor Association v. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
Corporation, decided three years later, Justice J.B.L. Reyes, speaking for the Court,
stressed that to rule that such demand for damages is to be pass upon by the
regular courts of justice, instead of leaving the matter to the Court of Industrial
Relations, 'would be to sanction split jurisdiction, which is prejudicial to the
orderly administration of justice.' Thereafter, this Court, in the case of Leoquenio
v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. and Associated Labor Union v. Cruz, with the opinions
coming from the same distinguished jurist, adhered to such a doctrine the latest
case in point, as noted at the outset, is the Goodrich Employees Association
decision.....

The doctrine reviewed and enunciated in Holganza was reaffirmed in PLDT Co. v.
Free Telephone Workers Union, promulgated on August 30,1982, which ruled that
"regular courts,. ... (e.g.) Courts of First Instance, ... have no jurisdiction over
complaints for damages of this nature.3

It thus appears that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint for damages filed with it by the PLDT, and that court's
judgment was on that account a nullity. Its judgment will therefore have to be
invalidated and set aside, as also that of the Court of Appeals upholding it. The
judgment being void and inexistent, there is no need to consider and determine
the correctness of the other arguments asserted against it.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals subject of the instant appeal,
and that of the Court of First Instance by it affirmed are REVERSED AND SET
 -FFW-CALMASUCO filed its reply maintaining that under the law, when there is no
existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time a petition for
certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does not apply.

-Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FFW. DOLE affirmed.

ISSUE/S

1. WON the 25% subscription requirement applies

HELD

1. No.

Ratio Article 257 of the Labor code is applicable to unorganized labor

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORP VS LAGUESMA organizations and not to establishments where there exists a certified bargaining
agent which had previously entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
209 SCRA 606 the management Reasoning In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that the
[June 8, 1992] supervisors of CMC which constitute a bargaining unit separate and distinct from
that of the rank-and-file, have no such agent. Thus they correctly filed a petition
NATURE for certification election thru union FFW-CALMASUCO, likewise indubitably
Petition for review on certiorari a legitimate labor organization. CMC’s insistence on the 25% subscription
requirement, is clearly immaterial. The same has been expressly deleted by
FACTS Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is presently prescribed only in organized
establishments, that is, thosewith existing bargaining agents. Freedom Period
-A petition for certification election among the supervisors of California
Manufacturing Corp (CMC) was filed by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW).
California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO),
alleging interalia, that it is a duly registered federation while FFW-CALMASUCO
Chapter is a duly registered chapter.

-CMC alleged that the petition should be denied since it does not contain the
requisite number of signatures 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.
 percent (25%) of all its supervisors and that a big number of the supposed
signatories to the petition are not actually supervisors

-FFW-CALMASUCO in its reply maintained, among others, that under the law,
when there is no existing unit yet in a particular bargaining unit at the time
a petition for certification election is filed, the 25% rule on the signatories does
not apply

-Med-Arbiter ordered that a certification election be conducted among the

supervisory employees of California Manufacturing Corporation

-CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment which, however,

affirmed the above order

-CMC’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition.

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION ISSUE

VS WON the petition for the holding of a certification election should be denied as it
is not supported by the required twenty-five percent (25%) of all its supervisors
LAGUESMA
HELD

209 SCRA 609

No
[June 8, 1992]
-CMC’s insistence on the 25% subscription requirement, is clearly immaterial. The
NATURE same has been expressly deleted by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6715 and is
Petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or presently prescribed only in organized establishments, that is, those with existing
temporary restraining order bargaining agents.

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)
-In its answer, CMC alleged that the petition for the holding of a certification
election should be denied as it is not supported by the required twenty-five
-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 complied 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
Disposition
The petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
G.R. No. L-24993 December 18, 1968
UNITED RESTAUROR'S EMPLOYEES & LABOR UNION-PAFLU vs. HON. GUILLERMO
E. TORRES
FACTS: The case arose from a verified complaint for injunction with prayer for
preliminary injunction filed by Delta Development Corporation (Delta), against the
Union on January 16, 1965.1 It is there averred that: Delta is the owner of the
Makati Commercial Center situated at Makati, Rizal. The Union is an association of
some employees of Sulo Restaurant, a lessee of Delta. On January 8, 1965, the
Union sought permission from Delta to conduct picketing activities "on the private
property of plaintiff surrounding Sulo Restaurant." On January 11, Delta denied
the request because it "may be held liable for any incident that may happen in the
picket lines, since the picketing would be conducted on the private property
owned by plaintiff." Despite the denial, the Union picketed on Delta's property
surrounding Sulo Restaurant on January 16 and continued to conduct said activity.
Such act of the Union is violative of the property rights of, and would cause great
and irreparable injury to, Delta. No employer-employee relationship exists
between Delta and the Union members. Delta then prayed that a writ of
preliminary injunction issue and that, after hearing, such injunction be made
permanent.
As aforesaid, respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The
Union's move to reconsider was denied on January 26, 1965. On January 19,
1965, the Union filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that the court
had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Delta moved to dismiss the proceeding at bar on the ground that it has become
moot and academic. It averred that the Union lost in the consent election
conducted by the Department of Labor on October 4, 1965 in CIR Cases 1455-MC
and 1464-MC, and thereby also lost its right to picket; and that in said election
cases, a rival union — Sulo Employees Labor Union (SELU, for short) was —
certified by CIR as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of
Sulo Restaurant pursuant to CIR's order of December 23, 1965.
The Union opposed. It argued that the picketing was conducted on or about
January 16, 1965, that is, around 8 months before the consent election on
October 4, 1965; and that the issues that triggered the Union's labor strike of
January 16, 1965 are entirely distinct and foreign to the issues in Cases 1455-MC
and 1464-MC.
RULING: The case has become moot and academic.
When the Union struck and picketed on January 16, 1965, it might have been true
that the Union commanded a majority of Sulo's employees. Without need of
certification, it could, under such circumstances, conclude a collective bargaining
agreement with Sulo.2 But it is not disputed that on October 4, 1965, i.e., shortly
after this case was filed on September 18, 1965, a consent election was held. Not
controverted, too, is the fact that, in that consent election, SELU defeated the
Union, petitioner herein. Because of this, SELU was certified to the Sulo
management as the "collective bargaining representative of the employees ... for
collective bargaining purposes as regards wages, hours of work, rates of pay
and/or such other terms and conditions of employment allowed them by law." 3
The consent election, it should be noted, was ordered by CIR pursuant to the
Union's petition for direct certification docketed as Case 1455-MC and a similar
petition for certification filed by SELU docketed as Case 1464-MC. Verily, the
Union can no longer demand collective bargaining. For, it became the minority
union. As matters stand, said right properly belongs to SELU, which commands the
majority. By law, the right to be the exclusive representative of all the employees
in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union union to compel an employer to bargain with it is unlawful. No labor dispute
"designated or selected" for such purpose "by the majority of the employees" in can exist between a minority union and an employer in such a case."10
the unit concerned.4 SELU has the right as well as the obligation to hear, voice out
Upon the law then, the Union's right to strike and consequently to picket ceased
and seek remedies for the grievances of all Sulo employees, including employees
by its defeat in the consent election. That election occurred during the
who are members of petitioner Union, regarding the "rates of pay, wages, hours
pendency before this Court of this original petition for certiorari lodged by the
of employment, or other conditions of employment."
Union the thrust of which is to challenge the power of the Court of First Instance
Indeed, petitioner Union's concerted activities designed to be recognized as the to enjoin its picketing activities. The Union may not continue to picket. The
exclusive bargaining agent of Sulo employees must come to a halt. 5 Collective object of the case before us is lost.
bargaining cannot be the appropriate objective of petitioning Union's
continuation of their concerted activities. The record before us does not reveal
any other legitimate purpose. To allow said Union to continue picketing for the
purpose of drawing the employer to the collective bargaining table would
obviously be to disregard the results of the consent election. To further permit
the Union's picketing activities would be to flaunt at the will of the majority.

The outcome of a consent election cannot be rendered meaningless by a minority

group of employees who had themselves invoked the procedure to settle the
dispute. Those who voted in the consent election against the labor union that was
eventually certified are hidebound to the results thereof. Logic is with this view.
By their very act of participating in the election, they are deemed to have
acquiesced to whatever is the consequence of the election. As to those who did
not participate in the election, the accepted theory is that they "are presumed to
assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting." 6

Adherence to the methods laid down by statute for the settlement of industrial
strife is one way of achieving industrial peace; one such method is certification
election.7 It is the intent and purpose of the law that this procedure, when
adopted and availed of by parties to labor controversies, should end industrial
disputes, not continue them.8 Pertinent is the following observation to which we
fully concur: "Before an election is held by the Board 9 to determine which of two
rival unions represents a majority of the employees, one of the unions may call a
strike and demand that the employer bargain with it. A labor dispute will then
exist. Nothing in the statute makes it illegal for a minority to strike and thereby
seek to obtain sufficient strength so as to become the sole bargaining agent. But
after the Board certifies the bargaining representative, a strike by a minority

CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS V. NORIEL
Petitioner: Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions
Respondent: Noriel (Director of BLR), Phil Association of Free Labor Unions, Pacific Mills
Inc.
Doctrine: The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees true
representation in their collective bargaining with an employer.
Facts:
1) Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions (CCLU) was one of the 4 unions
wanting to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of the
Employees in the Redson Textile Manufacturing Corporation (Redson).
2) The other 3 Unions aspiring to become the collective bargaining
representative were:
a. National Union of Garments Textile and General Workers of the
Philippines (GATCORD)
b. National Trade Union (NATU)
c. Associated Labor Unions (ALU)
3) A Certification Election was held in the premises of the Corporation. Out of
the 831 votes cast:
a. CCLU – 356 votes
b. ALU – 338 votes
c. NATU - 82 votes
d. GATCORD – 42 votes
4) Since no Union obtained a majority vote, CCLU and ALU, which had the 2
largest number of votes, agreed in a Pre-Election Conference stating that
Run-Off Election would be held on Nov. 6, 1980, from 6am-6pm. CCLU
requested that the Cert Election be conducted for 2 days but ALU
objected.
5) (Nov 6, 1980) 3 Election Supervisors (Enriquez, De Luna, Francisco) from
DOLE, arrived at around 7 am near the Redson Compound, but
were not allowed by the Security Guard to enter the premises even with rain.
6) After consultation with their Chief (Atty. Padilla), they held the Cert Election
outside the premises of the company using an improvised ballot box.
7) Union reps did not object to the improvised polling and ballot box. Before
the voting closed at 6:30pm, Taneo (ALU rep) executed a written
protest saying that Redson:
a. management did not allow runoff election within premises
b. prevented 50% of workers from voting by inducing them to work
OT
c. guards manhandled the ALU VP and caused confusion.
d. refused to furnish election paraphernalia like the polling place and
ballot box and supervisors declared the election closed in spite of
ALU’s objection.
8) Taneo prayed that the votes should not be counted, that another day be
scheduled for the continuation of the election and that the company be
ordered to allow its workers to vote.
9) (7:30 pm) New votes cast were canvassed. Of the 692 votes cast
a. ALU - 366 votes
b. CCLU - 313 votes, or a margin of 53 votes.
10) Because ALU won, Taneo, withdrew his Protest by writing on
the Minutes Of The Proceeding that his protest or manifestation was withdrawn "before
the close of the proceedings". CCLU reps then refused to sign the minutes of election.
11) Fresnoza (CCLU rep) filed with BLR a protest saying that the Cert Election
and continuation of election be annulled.
a. Previous day’s election irregular because there are no booths, and
the election started late.
b. ALU distributed shirt, gave free rides and also hired men to force
workers to vote for ALU.
12) Fresnoza and Sanchez (acting pres of Redson Union) protested and filed
with BLR a joint affidavit attesting what transpired during the Cert
Election.
13) CCLU informed the Bureau of Labor Relations that the election was
conducted without regard to the provisions of section 6, Rule VI, Book V of
the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.
14) Noriel (Noriel), Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, in
his Resolution of dismissed CCLU's protest for lack of merit.
a. CCLU failed to submit pleadings and evidence required.
b. CCLU failed to file a protest either "before or during the election
proceeding" and, therefore, pursuant to section 3, Rule VI,
Book V of the aforementioned rules, CCLU is deemed to have
waived its right to protest.
15) Noriel in his (2nd) Resolution denied CCLU’s MR and certified ALU as
Exclusive Bargaining Unit. CCLU and Redson Union filed the present
Petition to annul the Certification Election on the ground that: Certification
Election was conducted in violation of Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code:
Sec. 6. Duties of representation officer.— Before the actual voting
commences the representation officer shall inspect the polling place, the ballot boxes, and the
polling booths to insure secrecy of balloting.
The parties shall be given opportunity to witness the inspection
proceedings. After the examination of the ballot box, the representation
officer shall lock it with three keys one of which he shall keep and the
rest forthwith given one each to the employer's representative and the
representative of the labor organization. If more than one union is
a. The workers on the night shift (ten p.m. to six a.m.) and some of those in
the afternoon shift were not able to vote, so much so that out of 1,010
voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote
b. The secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded;
c. The election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently
"intimidated" by a union representative and
d. The participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to
vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides
and Tshirts.
The purpose of a certification election is to give the employees "true
representation in their collective bargaining with an employer”. That purpose was not
achieved in the run-off election because many employees or Union Members were not
able to vote and the employer, through apathy or deliberate intent, did not render
assistance in the holding of the election. It should be noted that ALU's written protest
(later withdrawn) was based on the same grounds invoked by CCLU in its protest. That fact
alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that
CCLU's protest was not filed on time.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of Noriel are hereby set aside.
Another run-off certification election should be conducted inside the premises of Redson
Textile Manufacturing Corporation. The Management is ordered to allow all its employees
to participate in the certification election and to assist in the holding of an orderly
election.The Election Supervisors or Representation Officers are also enjoined to fulfil their
duties.

involved, the holder of the third shall be determined by drawing of lots.

The key shall remain in the possession of the representation officer and

the parties during the entire proceedings and thereafter until all the

controversies concerning the conduct of the election shall have been

definitely resolved.

Issue:

WON there was a valid Certification Election held?

Held:

No. The Certification Election is invalid because of certain irregularities such as that: