Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Marcelo Enterprises G.R. No.

L-38258 November 19, 1982 QUICK SUMMARY:

De La Salle V. De La Salle University Employees' Association. G.R. No. 109002 April 12, 2000 QUICK SUMMARY:

LAKAS and 3 other unions are vying for the attention of the Marcelo Companies regarding who shall by the sole and exclusive bargaining representative. The companies required proof of authority from the unions. Later, the companies were compelled to file a certification election of who shall be the exclusive bargaining representative. Among other things, LAKAS claims that these are considered ULP.

This case is about what kind of employees should be included in the collective bargaining unit of DLSU. Should it include the computer services workers? The Discipline employees? The employees of the college of St. Benilde? DLSU claims that the first two should not be included because they are confidential employees. As to St. Benilde, it asserts that CSB employees should not be included because CSB and DLSU have a separate juridical personality. DOCTRINE:

DOCTRINE: In a situation like this where the issue of legitimate representation in dispute is viewed for not only by one legitimate labor organization but two or more, there is every equitable ground warranting the holding of a certification election. In this way, the issue as to who is really the true bargaining representative of all the employees may be firmly settled by the simple expedient of an election. ~ It is essential to the right of a putative bargaining agent to represent the employees that it be the delegate of a majority of the employees and, conversely, an employer is under duty to bargain collectively only when the bargaining agent is representative of the majority of the employees. A natural consequence of these principles is that the employer has the right to demand of the asserted bargaining agent proof of its representation of its employees. Having the right to demonstration of this fact, it is not an 'unfair labor practice' for an employer to refuse to negotiate until the asserted bargaining agent has presented reasonable proof of majority representation. It is necessary however, that such demand be made in good faith and not merely as a pretext or device for delay or evasion. The employer's right is however to reasonable proof. Although an employer has the undoubted right to bargain with a bargaining agent whose authority has been established, without the requirement that the bargaining agent be officially certified by the National Labor Relations Board as such, if the informally presented evidence leaves a real doubt as to the issue, the employer has a right to demand a certification and to refuse to negotiate until such official certification is presented. ~ The protection of workers' right to self-organization in no way interfere with employer's freedom to enforce such rules and orders as are necessary to proper conduct of his businesses, so long as employer's supervision is not for the purpose of intimidating or coercing his employees with respect to their self-organization and representation.

The express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. During the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. With regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees functions, after a careful consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court, we rule that the said computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees. As carefully examined by the Solicitor General, the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non-confidential in nature.[52] As to the discipline officers, we agree with the voluntary arbitrator that based on the nature of their duties, they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-andfile employees. ~ No sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.