Scribd
Upload
91 views2 pages

SLECC V SECRETARY OF LABOR

1) CLUP filed a petition for certification election among Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation employees which was dismissed due to inappropriate bargaining unit. 2) CLUP reorganized as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUP-SLECCWA) and filed another petition for direct certification. 3) Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation opposed the petition, claiming it had already voluntarily recognized another union, SMSLEC. 4) The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition based on the contract bar rule. However, the Secretary of Labor and Employment allowed the appeal, finding the prior recognition of SMSLEC did not bar CLUP-SLECCWA's petition.

Uploaded by

MC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views2 pages

SLECC V SECRETARY OF LABOR

1) CLUP filed a petition for certification election among Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation employees which was dismissed due to inappropriate bargaining unit. 2) CLUP reorganized as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUP-SLECCWA) and filed another petition for direct certification. 3) Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation opposed the petition, claiming it had already voluntarily recognized another union, SMSLEC. 4) The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition based on the contract bar rule. However, the Secretary of Labor and Employment allowed the appeal, finding the prior recognition of SMSLEC did not bar CLUP-SLECCWA's petition.

Uploaded by

MC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v HON.

SECRETARY OF LABOR AND


EMPLOYMENT and STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION WORKERS
ASSOCIATION (CLUP LOCAL CHAPTER)
G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009

FACTS:
On 27 February 2001, Confederated Labor Union of the Philippines (CLUP), in behalf of its
chartered local, instituted a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file
employees of Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation and its Affiliates.

Med-Arbiter Bactin ordered the dismissal of the petition due to inappropriateness of the
bargaining unit.

CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation and its Affiliates Workers Union appealed the
order of dismissal to DOLE. CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation and its Affiliates
Workers Union [CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union] moved for the withdrawal of the
appeal. DOLE granted the motion and affirmed the dismissal of the petition.

In the meantime [CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union] reorganized itself and re-
registered as CLUP-Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation Workers Association (CLUP-
SLECCWA), limiting its membership to the rank-and-file employees of Sta. Lucia East
Commercial Corporation. It was issued Certificate of Creation of a Local Chapter.

CLUP-SLECCWA filed a petition for direct certification. It alleged that SLECC employs about
115 employees and that more than 20% of employees belonging to the rank-and-file category
are its members. It claimed that no certification election has been held among them within the
last 12 months prior to the filing of the petition, and while there is another union registered with
DOLE-Regional Office No. IV covering the same employees, namely SMSLEC, it has not been
recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of SLECC's employees.

SLECC filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It averred that it has voluntarily recognized
SMSLEC as the exclusive bargaining agent of its regular rank-and-file employees, and that
collective bargaining negotiations already commenced between them. SLECC argued that the
petition should be dismissed for violating the one year and negotiation bar rules under pars.

CLUP-SLECCWA assailed the validity of the voluntary recognition of SMSLEC by SLECC and
their consequent negotiations and execution of a CBA. According to SLECCWA, the same were
tainted with malice, collusion and conspiracy involving some officials of the Regional Office.

Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin dismissed CLUP-SLECCWA's petition for direct certification on


the ground of contract bar rule. The prior voluntary recognition of SMSLEC and the CBA
between SLECC and SMSLEC bars the filing of CLUP-SLECCWA's petition for direct
certification. SMSLEC is entitled to enjoy the rights, privileges, and obligations of an exclusive
bargaining representative from the time of the recording of the voluntary recognition. Moreover,
the duly registered CBA bars the filing of the petition for direct certification.

The Secretary found merit in CLUP-SLECCWA's appeal. The Secretary held that the
subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA executed by SLECC with SMSLEC could not
bar CLUP-SLECCWA's petition. CLUP-SLECC and its Affiliates Workers Union constituted a
registered labor organization at the time of SLECC's voluntary recognition of SMSLEC.
The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the Secretary.

ISSUE: Whether or not the employer may participate in a petition for certification election

HELD: NO. We find it strange that the employer itself, SLECC, filed a motion to oppose CLUP-
SLECCWA's petition for certification election. In petitions for certification election, the employer
is a mere bystander and cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbiter's decision. The
exception to this rule, which happens when the employer is requested to bargain collectively, is
not present in the case before us.

You might also like