26 Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Young 2. Bulacan II Electric Cooperative Inc.
lacan II Electric Cooperative Inc. (BECO II) filed its answer contending that
No. L-62386. November 9, 1988.
Doctrine: An employee of a cooperative who is also a member and co-owner
thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining.
Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are entitled to exercise
the rights of all workers to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining. Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it
mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a
certification election in order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees.
Facts: This case involves 3 separate petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
G.R. No. 62386
1. On June 1,1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (UNION) filed with
the Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now DOLE),
at San Pablo City, a petition for certification election.
2. The UNION alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Batangas-
I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC) has more or less 150 employees; that the
UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file employees of BATELEC for
purposes of collective bargaining; that there is no other union existing in
BATELEC except the UNION; that there is no certified collective bargaining
agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no certification
election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding
the filing of the petition.
3. Med Arbiter: allowed the certification election. BATELEC filed MR reasoning
that there was a legal impediment to the holding of a certification election
considering that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid,
the officers and members of the union being the owners thereof.
4. Bureau of Labor: granted the appeal, revoked the Med Arbiter’s order. Held
that Section 35 of PD 269 shows that employees of an electric cooperative who
are also members of the cooperative have no right to form or join a labor
organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
5. Union filed this petition, contending that the Director of the Bureau of Labor
committed GADALEJ in concluding and finding that employees of an electric
cooperative who are at the same time members of the cooperative are not
allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes
of collective bargaining.
G.R. No. 70880
1. Federation of Free Workers filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment
in Pampanga a petition for certification election.
petition does not comply with the 30% jurisdictional requirement considering
that it has a total of 143 EEs, 24 of whom are members of the cooperative, 28
are managerial employees, 3 are confidential employees, 23 are contractual
employees and 28 are casual employees, thereby leaving only 37 employees
belonging to the rank and file; and that to grant the petition would be violative
of Article 244 (now Article 243) of the Labor Code and Section 35 of PD 269.
3. FFW alleges that it has it has complied substantially with the 30% jurisdictional
requirement with the 73 signatures it submitted and that there is nothing in
the law that prohibits or restricts cooperative members from joining labor
organizations.
4. BECO II contended that it is not among those covered by Article 244 of the
Labor Code, as amended by BP 70, as it is not a commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise and neither is it a religious, charitable, medical or
educational institution; that since electric cooperatives are subject to the
supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration pursuant
to PD 269, as amended by PD 1645, BECO II in effect is a government
institution; and that there is no representation issue as there is no other labor
organization involved except the FFW.
5. Med-Arbiter: allowed certification election.
6. BECO II filed the instant petition contending that the public respondents acted
with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that under Article 244 (now Article 243)
of the Labor Code, members and part owners of electric cooperatives are
eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective
bargaining.
G.R. No. 74560
1. On October 1, 1985, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) ALECO I Chapter
filed a petition for certification election, alleging, inter alia, that it is a legitimate
labor organization; that the Albay Electric Cooperative I (ALECO I) is an electric
cooperative servicing electricity in the Province of Albay; that ALECO I has 160
employees, more or less, majority of whom are FFW members; that there is no
other union existing nor a collective bargaining agreement existing in the
cooperative; that no certification election has been held for the past twelve
(12) months prior to the filing of the petition.
2. The next month, FFW submitted 63 signatures in support of the petition for
certification election. On the same date, counsel for ALECO I employees for a
"NO-UNION STAND" intervened and submitted a copy of the ALECO I 1985
budget showing that the said cooperative has a total of 141 rank and file
employees.
3. FFW: contends that ALECO I is covered by the LC; that it has a right to organize
and be represented by a union; that there is no legal impediment to the holding
 of a certification election considering that 63 employees supported the
petition.
4. ALECO I: sought dismissal of the petition; alleges that FFW failed to comply
with the 30% requirement considering that 112 rank and file employees have
manifested in a "declaration" they that do not desire to be represented by any
union.
5. Intervenor, ALECO I EEs for a no-union stand: sought dismissal of the petition,
alleging that the 30% written consent requirement has not been complied
with. It alleged that of the 63 signatories to the petition, 51 are not qualified to
join the union as they are members-consumers of the ALECO I and are
considered joint owners of the cooperative pursuant to PD 269, and Art. II Sec.
I of the revised bylaws of ALECO I.
6. MedArbiter: allowed certification election. On appeal, Director of Bureau of
Labor Relations ruled that there was a "clear proof of compliance with the 30%
subscription requirement, coupled with the finding that the subscribers to the
petition who are members/owners of the respondent cooperative can validly
be eligible for union membership."
Issue: Whether or not employees of electric cooperatives are qualified to form or
join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.
Held:
1. In the first case: upheld resolution revoking the certification election.
a. Minus the rank and file employees, who were also members of
BATELEC, there was still a sufficient number to constitute 30% of
the bargaining unit as a jurisdictional requirement.
b. However, such members are also members-consumers of the
cooperative, as admitted by the Union. As such, EEs belonging to
the Union are not qualified to form a labor organization and
bargain collectively.
2. In the second case: upheld order of medarbiter allowing certification
election.
a. There was no clear evidence was adduced by petitioner to prove
that 28 of its employees are managerial employees.
b. Even if the 24 cooperative members, assuming, in gratia
argumenti, that all of them supported the petition, are to be
deducted from the said 73 employees, there still remain forty-
nine (49), a sufficient compliance with the 30% jurisdictional
requirement provided in the old Article 258 of the Labor Code,
the law then prevailing.
c. Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are
entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to form, join or assist
labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.
d. Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it
mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order
the holding of a certification election in order to determine the
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees.
3. In the third case: disallowed holding of certification election.
a. It is clear from the records in this case that the petitioner ALECO
I has 141 rank and file employees. Hence, there are 90 rank and
file employees, nonmembers of the cooperative, who may
validly form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining.
b. However, 51 fo them are members of the cooperative. Thus only
12 rank and file EEs were qualified to form, join or assist labor
organizations. What is required under the 30% jurisdictional
requirement is 27.
Ratio:
1. Eligibility to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining is governed by Article 243 (formerly Article 244) of
the Labor Code.
2. In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja,
Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, et al, it was held that an employee of
a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the
right to collective bargaining.
a. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an
ordinary business concern being run either by persons,
partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are
the ones who run and operate the business while the others are
its employees.
b. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member
and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective
bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or
his co-owners.
c. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees
who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such
employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to
organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are
enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.