Atty. Kristy Jane M. Balino, LL.M.

Sources of Labor Law

Constitution/Law

Contract

Jurisprudence

Company practice

International Conventions
Labor Law

Labor law consists of statutes, regulations and jurisprudence governing the

relations between capital and labor, providing for certain employment
standards and a legal framework for negotiating, adjusting and administering
those standards and other incidents of employment.

Two (2) kinds:

Labor Standards
Labor Relations

All labor laws are social legislations but not all social legislations are labor laws.
§ Labor relations - refers to that part of labor law which regulates the relations
between employers and workers. Example: Book V of the Labor Code which deals
with labor organizations, collective bargaining, grievance machinery, voluntary
arbitration, conciliation and mediation, unfair labor practices, strikes, picketing
and lockout.

§ Labor standards - refers to that part of labor law which prescribes the minimum
terms and conditions of employment which the employer is required to grant to its
employees. Examples: Books One to Four of the Labor Code as well as Book VI
thereof which deal with working conditions, wages, hours of work, holiday pay and
other benefits, conditions of employment of women, minors, househelpers and
homeworkers, medical and dental services, occupational health and safety,
termination of employment and retirement.
Employer Employee

A ny p e rs o n , n at u ra l or Any person in the employ of an

e m p l o y e r. T h e t e r m s h a l l n o t b e
juridical, e m p l oy i n g the
limited to the employees of a
s e r v i c e s o f t h e e m p l oye e . p a r t i c u l a r e m p l o y e r, u n l e s s t h e
( A r t . 1 7 3 , LC ) Code so explicitly states. It shall
include any individual whose
E m p l oye r i n c l u d e s a ny p e rs o n work has ceased as a result of or
a c t i n g i n t h e i nte re st o f a n in connection with any current
e m p l oye r d i re c t l y or labor dispute or because of any
i n d i re c t l y w h i c h d o e s n o t unfair labor practice if he has
not obtained any other
i n c l u d e l a b o r o rga n i zat i o n s .
substantially equivalent and
( A r t . 2 1 9 , LC ) regular employment. (Art. 219,
LC)
Probationary
Learner
employees

Casual
Apprentice
employees

Regular
Employees
 duration

Lapse of
nature probationary
employment

Regular
employment
 Regular Employees

(1) those engaged to perform activities which are

necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer;

(2) those casual employees who have rendered at

least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activities in which they
are employed
Exceptions in Art. 295

PROJECT EMPLOYMENT SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT

13
Seasonal Employment
Hired for one season only
Termination at the end of the season
Exception: Regular Seasonal Employment
◦ Reasonable connection between work and
business
◦ Engaged for more than 1 season
◦ Off-season: EER is not severed (merely on leave
without pay)

15
 Project Employees
First, a project may refer to a particular job or undertaking that is
within the regular or usual business of the employer, but which is
distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other
undertakings of the company.

Second, the term project may also refer to a particular job or

undertaking that is not within the regular business of the employer.
Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and
distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the
employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at
determined or determinable times.

The principal test is whether or not the project employees were

assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the
duration and scope of which were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that project.
 Not exceeding 6 months

Probationary Standards for regularization must be

made known to the employee at the
Employment time of engagement

Security of tenure: during

probationary period

10
 Fixed-Term Employment
It should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. There should have been
no force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the
employee; neither should there be any other circumstance that
vitiates the employee’s consent.

It should satisfactorily appear that the employer and the

employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with
no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the
employee.

Moreover, fixed-term employment will not be considered valid

where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have
been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee.
 Specific undertaking
Duration of employment: fixed term or day
certain
Duration must be made known to employee at
Project the time of engagement

Employment Termination notice to employee NOT needed

Submit reports to DOLE
Exception (requisities)
◦ Repeated rehiring
◦ Tasks are vital, necessary, indispensable

14
Casual Employment

DOES NOT FALL

NOT A REGULAR WITHIN THE
EMPLOYEE EXCEPTIONS IN
ART. 295

12
Apprentices & Learners

APPRENTICE
Skilled work LEARNER
At least 15 y/o At least 15 y/0
Vocational aptitude Not exceeding 3 months
3-6 months only

Note: No EER
9
Teachers / Professors

Probationary period: 3 years

PERMANENCY
Full-time status Completion of 3-year Satisfactory service
probationary period

17
 Who ma y jo i n?
d u st ri a l a n d a g ricultural
s e m p lo y e d in commercial, in e ducational
All person , m e d ic a l, o r
se s a n d in re lig ious, charitable , jo in , o r a ssist labor
e nte rp ri fo rm
ra ti n g fo r profit or not, to
institutions, whe
the r o p e
ng fo r p u rp o se s of collective
a n iz a tio ns o f th eir own choosi o rk e rs , se lf-employed
org ra n t w
b u la n t, in te rm ittent and itine lo ye rs m ay form
bargain in g . A m it e e m p
n d th o se w ithout any defin
people, rural wo
rkers a
tu a l aid a n d p rotection.
b or o rg a n iz a ti ons for their mu
la
d e fin ite p e rio d or not, shall,
e , w h e th e r e m ployed for a e m p loyee for
Any e m p lo y e re d a s a n
y o f se rvic e, be conside
beginning on his
firs t d a
b o r u n io n . (A rt . 292(c), LC)
o se s o f m e m b ership in any la
purp
 Who may not join?

N AGERIA L EMPLOYEES
MA

IDEN TIA L EMPLOYEES

CONF
O
S O F C O O P ERATIVES WH
EMPLOYEE
eligible to ARE ALSO M
EMBERS

oin Unions EMPLOYEES

O F EM B A S S IES & IOS WITH
IMMUNITY
DIPLOMATIC

V ER N M EN T EMPLOYEES
GO
5
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

ib ility o f Ma n a g e ri al Employees
Inelig
le to jo in , a ss ist o r form any
n a ge rial e m plo ye e s are not eligib io n has been
Ma a le fo r th is in h ib it
e ration
labor organization. Th m a n a g e ria l e m p loyees would
se if these
stated to be, becau U n io n , th e la tt e r m ight not be
ated with a
belong to or be affili io n in vie w o f e v id e nt conflict of
lty to the Un
assured of their loya e c o m p a n y -d o m in ated with
te rest s. Th e Union c an also becom m e mbership.
in lo y e e s in U n io n
agerial emp
the presence of man iso ry U n io n v La g u e sma, [1998])
perv
(United Pepsi-Cola Su
 Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the

Definitions employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the

exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling
within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file
employees for purposes of this Book. [Art. 219 (m)]

”Managerial employees" refer to those whose primary duty consists of the

management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a
department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of
the managerial staff. [Art. 162]
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

e e lig ib le fo r m e m b ership in a labor

es shall not b y join, assist or form
Supervisory employe e m p lo ye e s b u t m a
nk-and-file
organization of the ra o r o rg a n iz a tions of their own.
sepa ra te la b

se ly id e n tif ie d w ith the employer than

es are more clo -and-file employees
Supervisory employe p e rv is o ry a n d ra n k
employees. If su g interests of
with the rank-and-file n io n , th e c o n fli c tin
o m pa n y a re allo w ed to form a single u rse ly a ffe c t discipline,
in a c n d a d ve
their relationship a n obtain not only
these groups impair c o n se q u e n c e s c a
g, and strikes. These es in the same
collective bargainin n k- a n d -f ile e m p lo ye
rvisory and ra
in cases where supe io n b u t a ls o w h e re unions formed
a single un a company
company belong to - fil e e m p lo ye e s o f
p e rvisory and rank-and
inde p en d en tly by su
w ith th e sa m e n a tional federation.
te
are allowed to affilia
 Employees in Labor
Relations

Managers Supervisors Rank-and-file

 Employees in Labor Relations
MANAGERIAL
SUPERVISORS RANK-AND-FILE
EMPLOYEES

Managerial employee" is one who is vested with Supervisory employees are those who, in the All employees not falling within any of the
the powers or prerogatives to lay down and interest of the employer, effectively recommend above definitions are considered rank-and-file
execute management policies and/or to hire, such managerial actions if the exercise of such employees for purposes of the Labor Code.
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, authority is not merely routinary or clerical in
assign or discipline employees. nature but requires the use of independent The rank-and-file union and the supervisors'
judgment. union operating within the same establishment
They also refer to those whose primary duty may join the same federation or national union.
consists of the management of the Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
establishment in which they are employed or of membership in the collective bargaining unit of
a department or subdivision thereof, and to the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
other officers or members of the managerial or form separate collective bargaining units
staff. and/or legitimate labor organizations of their
own.
Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?
es
Confidential Employe
ry Implication
Doctrine of Necessa o d e lim its th e ineligibility to
b o r C
u g h A rtic le 24 5 (n o w Art. 255) of the La n a g e ria l employees,
Altho tio n to m a
any labor organiza l employees or
join, form and assist ib iti o n to c o n fid e n tia
ended this proh required to assist
jurisprudence has ext r n a tu re o f w o rk a re
n of their positions o s and hence, are
those who by reaso na g e ria l e m p lo ye e
manner to ma
or act in a fiduciary tive a n d h ig h ly c o n fid e ntial records.
likewise privy to sensi

e La b o r C o d e si ng les out managerial

Art. 255) of th ation, under
While Art. 245 (now a ny la b o r o rg a niz
lo ye e a s ine lig ib le to join, assist or form e m p lo ye es are similarly
em p o n fid e n tia l
ssary implication, c statute is as much a
the doctrine of nece h a t is im p lie d in a
trine states that w
disqualified. This doc which is expressed.
part thereof as that
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

ees
Confidential Employ
e s w h o w e re e x c luded from the
ploye
As to confidential em
t to se lf-o rg an iza ti o n, they must
righ
c o n fi d e n ti a l c a p a city, in regard
a. assist or act in a rm in e d , a n d e ffe c tuated
pe rso n s w h o fo rm ulated, dete
b. to
ie s in th e fi e ld o f la bor relations.
management polic
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

ees
Confidential Employ
e m p lo y e e s w h o h a s access to
other
A payroll master and a ta a re n o t c o n fi d ential
sation d
salary and compen o f th e ir w o rk d o n ot pertain to
nature
employees since the o n s a n d c o n fi d e n ti al labor
regulati
company rules and
relations.
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

y ee-M emb er of C ooperative

Emp lo
is n o t a v a ila ble to an
ri g h t to c o lle c ti v e bargaining ti m e is a
The a t th e sa m e
lo y e e o f a c o o p e rative who the right
emp e y c a n n o t in v o ke
b e r a n d c o -o w n e r thereof. Th r c annot
mem a in ly a n o w n e
c o lle c ti v e b a rg aining for "cert
to o -o wners."
h h im se lf o r h is c
bargain wit
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

Alien Employees
ll a s fo re ig n o rg a n izations
lie n s, n a tu ra l o r ju ri dical, as we d ire ctly in
All a g d ire c tl y o r in
st ri c tl y pro h ib ite d from engagin to normal
are it h o ut pre ju d ic e
rm s o f tr ad e u n io n activities w c o gnized
all fo r un io n s a n d re
ta c ts b e tw e e n P h ilippine labo
c on
enters.
international labor c
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

Alien Employees
e ri g h t to se lf-o rg a nization
E P TIO N : A lie n s m ay exercise th n c h oosing
EXC n s o f th e ir o w
jo in o r a ss ist la b o r organizatio
and rg a in in g p ro v id e d that:
ctive b a
for purposes of colle
e rm its issu e d b y th e DOLE
orking p
Aliens have valid w w h ic h g ra n ts th e same or
n s a re n a ti o n a ls o f a country
Alie rs. (A rt . 2 8 4, LC)
in o w o rke
similar rights to Filip
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

Organizations International
Employees of International
organizations
re e o f in te rn a ti o n a l legal
y are e n d o w e d w ith some deg m u nity. A
The ri sd ic ti o n a l im
n a lity . Th e y a re granted ju in an
pers o b e c o n d u c te d
a ti o n e le c ti o n cannot e nt has
cert ific e P h il. G o v e rn m
rn a tio n al o rg an iza tion which th
inte l jurisdiction.
m u n ity fro m lo c a
granted im
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

y ees in th e P u b lic Service

Emp lo
o rp o ra ti o n s e sta b lished under
ment c
Employees of govern h a v e th e ri g h t to o rganize and
de shall
the Corporation Co th e ir re sp e c ti v e e m ployers. All
ely with
to bargain collectiv se rv ic e sh a ll h a v e the right to
the civil
other employees in se s n o t c o n trary to law.
r purpo
form associations fo
 W ho m a y n o t j o i n ?

Security Guards
er pe rs o nn e l e m ployed by the
s and oth , join or
The security guard v e th e rig h t to fo rm
c urity serv ic e c o n tractor shall ha n of their own
se bo r o rg a n iz a ti o
lation of a la
assist in the formu a rg a inin g a n d to e ngage in
o sin g fo r p u rp ose s of collective b in c luding the
cho c o n tra ry to la w
on c e rte d a c tiv itie s which are not
c
right to strike.
rd s w e re b a rre d fr om joining a
security gua
Under the old rules, le , b u t u n d er R A 67 15, they
or o rg an iza tio n o f the rank and fi n k and file or
lab iz a tio n o f th e ra
w fr e e ly jo in a labor organ
m a y n o
union , de pe n d in g on their rank.
ry
that of the superviso
The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They
shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
Coverage and Employees' Right to Self-Organization.

All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural

enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational
institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to
self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their
own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant,
intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural
workers and those without any definite employers may form labor
organizations for their mutual aid and protection. [Art. 253]
§ Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or
not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be
considered as an employee for purposes of membership in
any labor union. [Art. 292 (c)]
§ A labor organization has two
broad rights: (1) to bargain
collectively and (2) to deal with
the employer concerning terms
and conditions of employment.
To bargain collectively is a right
given to a union once it registers
itself with the DOLE.
 § Includes
right to form a union, workers '
association and labor
management
councils
 § A union refers to any labor
organization in the private sector
organized for collective
bargaining and for other
legitimate purpose

A workers' association is an
organization of workers formed
for the mutual aid and protection
of its members or for any
legitimate purpose other than
collective bargaining.
Any labor organization which may or may not
be a union may deal with the employer. This
explains why a workers' association or
organization does not always have to be a
labor union and why employer-employee
collective interactions are not always
collective bargaining.

The Labor Code mandates that workers shall

have the right to participate in policy and
decision-making processes of the
establishment where they are employed
insofar as said processes will directly affect
their rights, benefits and welfare. For this
purpose, workers and employers may form
LMCs.
The concepts of a union and of a legitimate
labor organization are different from, but related
to, the concept of a bargaining unit.

A bargaining unit has been defined as a "group

of employees of a given employer, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interests of all
the employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicated to be best suited to serve
reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under
the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
§ The National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) is seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals and the
Secretary of Labor and Employment's decisions in a case regarding a certification election conducted among rank-and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel.

§ A certification election was conducted, and the results showed 353 employees in the voters' list, with 346 votes cast. NUWHRAIN-MPHC received 151 votes, HIMPHLU received 169
votes, there was 1 vote for no union, and 3 votes were spoiled. Additionally, 22 votes were segregated.

§ The case was referred back to the Med-Arbiter to decide which of the segregated votes would be opened and tallied.

§ The Med-Arbiter ruled for the opening of 17 out of the 22 segregated votes.

§ NUWHRAIN-MPHC appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, arguing that the votes of probationary employees should be opened because one probationary employee's vote
was counted. They also argued that HIMPHLU should not be certified as the bargaining agent because, with the 17 segregated votes included, HIMPHLU would be one vote short of the
required majority.

§ The Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order and ruled that probationary employees cannot vote, but the vote of the probationary employee mentioned earlier
was allowed. The Secretary also stated that the votes of dismissed employees could be considered pending appeal and that the votes of alleged supervisory employees should be counted.

§ The Secretary further ruled that even with the 17 segregated votes included, HIMPHLU would still have the majority, so their certification as the exclusive bargaining agent was proper.

§ NUWHRAIN-MPHC's motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

§ The Court of Appeals held that probationary employees hired after the issuance of the order for the certification election should not be allowed to vote. They also dismissed NUWHRAIN-
MPHC's contention that the 17 segregated votes would materially affect the election outcome, stating that the majority refers to the majority of valid votes cast.

§ NUWHRAIN-MPHC's motion for reconsideration was denied, and they filed the present recourse.

§ The Court ruled that probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election, and the inclusion of the probationary employee's vote was proper. Therefore, the votes of
the six other probationary employees should also have been counted. The Court also rules that the number of valid votes cast should be considered when determining if there is a majority.
With the inclusion of the 17 segregated votes, HIMPHLU did not obtain the required majority. The Court concludes that a run-off election should be held between NUWHRAIN-MPHC and
HIMPHLU to determine the exclusive bargaining agent. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Labor and Employment is annulled and set aside. The Department of
Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor Relations is directed to hold a run-off election between NUWHRAIN-MPHC and HIMPHLU.
• Private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng Anakpawis – Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (HCCS-TELUPIGLAS)
filed a petition for certification election, claiming to be a legitimate labor organization representing HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS.

• HCCS is a private educational institution with approximately 120 teachers and employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

• HCCS is unorganized, with no collective bargaining agreement or certified bargaining agent prior to the petition filing.

• Petitioner HCCS argued that private respondent is an illegitimate labor organization and an inappropriate bargaining unit.

• Private respondent countered that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of supervisory employees in the union and that qualifications of employees can be
determined in inclusion-exclusion proceedings.

• Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification election, ruling that the proposed bargaining unit is inappropriate.

• SOLE reversed the Med-Arbiter's decision and ordered the conduct of separate certification elections for teaching and non-teaching personnel.

• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the SOLE.

• Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which eventually dismissed the petition.

• Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in its ruling.

• Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision.

• The Court held that the presence of supervisory employees in the union does not affect its legitimacy, and that the determination of the appropriate bargaining
unit is a factual issue best left for inclusion-exclusion proceedings.

• The Court also emphasized that an employer has no standing to oppose a petition for certification election and should not interfere in the process.
R.A. No. 875 Sec. 3. Employees' right to self-
organization. - Employees shall have the right There is no word on whether such
to self-organization and to form, join or assist mingling would also result in loss of
labor organizations of their own choosing for legitimacy. the Labor Code was
the purpose of collective bargaining through enacted in 1974 without reproducing
representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 875. The provision in
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid the Labor Code closest to Sec. 3 is
or protection. Individuals employed as Article 290, which is deafeningly silent
supervisors shall not be eligible for on the prohibition against supervisory
membership in a labor organization of employees mingling with rank-and-file
employees under their supervision but may employees in one labor organization.
form separate organizations of their own.
§ On February 16, 2010, Samahan filed an application for registration with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

§ On February 26, 2010, the DOLE issued a certificate of registration in favor of Samahan.

§ On March 15, 2010, Hanjin filed a petition with the DOLE, seeking the cancellation of Samahan's registration, stating that its
members did not fall under the types of workers allowed to form a workers' association.
§ On March 18, 2010, Hanjin filed a supplemental petition, claiming that Samahan committed misrepresentation in its application
for registration.
§ On April 20, 2010, the DOLE Regional Director ruled in favor of Hanjin and cancelled Samahan's registration.

§ Samahan appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), arguing that Hanjin had no right to petition for the cancellation of its
registration.
§ On September 6, 2010, the BLR granted Samahan's appeal and reversed the ruling of the Regional Director.

§ Hanjin filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the BLR.

§ Hanjin filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed the petition but later reinstated it.

§ On July 4, 2013, the CA rendered its decision, affirming the BLR's directive to remove the words "Hanjin Shipyard" from
Samahan's name.
§ The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, reversing the CA's decision and reinstating the BLR's directive to remove the
words "Hanjin Shipyard" from Samahan's name.
 L e g itim a t e l a b o r
or g a n i z a t i o n
n du ly re gistere d w ith the
anizatio
means any labor org a nd inc ludes a ny branch
rtment of Labo r and Employment,
Depa 219[h])
or local thereof. (Art.
A "national union" or "federation"
is a labor organization with at
least ten locals or chapters or
affiliates, each of which must be a
duly certified or recognized
collective bargaining agent;

A trade union center, on the other

hand, is composed of a group of
registered national unions or
federations.
In Holy Spirit, HCCS appears to have
confused the concepts of membership in a
bargaining unit and membership in a union.
In emphasizing the phrase "to the exclusion of
academic employees” when believed that the
petitioning union could not admit academic
employees of the university to its
membership.

A bargaining unit is a group of employees

sought to be represented by a petitioning
union. Such employees need not be members
of a union seeking the conduct of a
certification election. A union certified as an
exclusive bargaining agent represents not
only its members but also other employees
who are not union members.
 Regist ratio n o f U nio n s

n c e nte r or an ind e pendent union

io
n, natio na l un io n or industry or trade un ht s a nd privileges granted by
A federatio ed to the rig
quire leg a l pe rso na lity and shall be entitl of th e certificate of registra
tion
shall ac o n issua nc e
or organizations up
law to legitimate lab g requirements:
based on the followin
registration fee;
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) prin c ipa l a d d ress of the labor
e s, the
officers, their address th e workers who
(b) The names of its etin g s a nd th e lis t o f
th e m in ut e s o f th e organizational me
organizatio n, meetings;
participated in such e na m e s o f all its members
un io n, th
In c a se th e a p p lic a nt is an independent e m p loye e s in th e bargaining unit
(c) e
ing a t le a st tw e nt y percent (20%) of all th
compris rate;
where it seeks to ope or more years, copie
s of
existe nc e fo r o ne
ion has been in
(d) If the applicant un ports; and
its annual financial re p plic a nt un ion, minutes of its
s o f th e a
ur c o p ie s o f th e c o nstitution and by- law w ho p a rtic ip a te d in it. (Art. 240, LC)
(e) Fo the list of the membe
rs
o r ra tif ica tion, a nd
adoption
 Regist ratio n o f U nio n s

Bu re a u o f La b o r R elations of
e
re g is tr a tio n o f th e organization with th e Commission which
It is the u rities a nd Ex c h a n g
ith the Sec ileges granted
the DOLE and not w w ith rig h ts a n d p riv
labor organization
made it a legitimate de.
under the Labor Co
n a lity to th e la b o r o rganization
g is tr a tio n w ith D O LE grants legal perso o w e r to exercise rights
Such re n w ith a p
m a ke s it a le g iti m a te labor organizatio rig h ts o f le gitimate labor
and d e o r th e
ro vi d e d u n d e r A rt. 251 of the Labor Co a n iza tio n does not make it
p a lab o r o rg
on- registration of ith legal personality
organizations. The n w e ve r n o t ve ste d w
nization. It is ho
an illegal labor orga a b le to e xe rc ise legal rights.
and will n o t be
A certification election
proceeding directly involves two
(2) issues namely: (a) the proper
composition and constituency of
the bargaining unit; and (b) the
validity of majority representation
claims. It is therefore incumbent
upon the Med-Arbiter to rule on
the appropriateness of the
bargaining unit once its
composition and constituency is
questioned.
A petition for certification may be
filed with the Med-Arbiter through
the Regional Office which has
jurisdiction over the principal office
of the employer or where the
bargaining unit is principally
situated.
"Med-Arbiter" is an officer in the
Regional Office or in the Bureau
authorized to hear, conciliate,
mediate and decide representation
cases, or to assist in the disposition
of intra or inter-union disputes.
 in g a nd C re a t io n
Charter
of a L o c al C h ap t e r

o r n a ti o n a l u n io n m ay directly
eration
A duly registered fed is su in g a c h a rt e r certificate
ter b y
create a local chap t o f th e lo c a l c h apter. The
lishm e n
indicating the estab rso n a lity o n ly fo r purposes of
e legal p e
chapter shall acquir o n fr o m th e d ate it was
a p e ti ti o n fo r c e rtification electi
filing ificate.
issues a charter cert
th e r ri g h ts a n d pri v ileges
r sh all b e e n ti tled to all o
The c h ap te
a ti o n o n ly u p o n th e submission
r organiz
of a legitimate labo n ts in a d d itio n to its charter
ume
of the following doc
certificate:
 in g a nd C re a t io n
Charter
of a L o c al C h ap t e r

e rs, th e ir a d d re sse s, and

Th e n a m e s o f th e c hapter’s offic
(a) e o f th e c hapter; and
the princ ip a l o ff ic , That
b y -la w s: P ro v id e d
) Th e c h ap te r’ s c o nstitution and th e same
(b n d b y -l a w s a re
e re th e c h a p te r’s c onstitution a fa ct shall
wh ti o n a l u n io n , th is
th a t o f th e fe d e ra tion or the na
as d a c c o rd ingly.
b e in d ic a te

g re q uire m e n ts sh a ll be certified
ortin
The additional supp a su re r o f th e c h a p ter and
d e r o a th b y th e se cretary or tre
un
b y its p re si d e n t. (A rt. 241, LC)
atteste d
 N at io nal U nio n s
Federations or
ti o n s o r N a tio n a l U nions
a l R e q u ir e m e nts for Federa
Ad d it io n
e a p p lic a n t fo r re g istration is a
th
Subject to Art. 238, if , it sh a ll, in a d dition to the
nal u n io n
federation or a natio ic le s, su b m it th e fo llowing:
ire m e n ts o f th e p re ceding Art h apters,
req u n (1 0 ) lo c a ls o r c
o f o f a ff ili a tio n of at least te
1.(a ) P ro
e a d u ly o rg a n iz e d collective
b
each of which must e n t o r in d u st ry in w hich it
g a g e n t in th e establishm
ba rg a in in
e re g is tra ti o n p f su ch applicant
th
operates, supporting o n a l u nion; and
fede ra ti o n o r n a ti
th e c o m p a n ie s w h ere the
) Th e n a m e s a n d a ddresses of m bers in
2.(b e lis t o f a ll th e m e
a ls o r c h a p te rs o p e rate and th
loc v o lv e d . (Art. 244, LC)
each c o m p a n y in
Rights of Leg itim ate
Labor Org a ni z atio ns
 L abo r O rgan izat io n s
Rights o f L e gitim ate
r th e pu rp os e of co lle ct ive bargaining;
tive of its members fo an appropriate
•To act as the representa of al l th e em pl oy ee s in
clusive representative
•To be certified as the ex r pu rp os es of co lle ct ive bargaining;
fo
bargaining unit
ri tte n re qu es t, w ith its annual audited financial
employer, upon w within thirty (30)
•To be furnished by the it an d lo ss st at em en t,
en ts , in cl ud in g th e ba lance sheet and the prof r th e un io n has been duly
statem re qu es t, af te
te of receipt of the ning representative
calendar days from the da le an d ex cl us iv e ba rg ai
gn iz ed by th e em pl oy er or certified as the so (6 0) ca le ndar days before the
re co w ith in si xt y
bargaining unit, or during the collective
of the employees in the rg ai ni ng ag re em en t, or
g collective ba
expiration of the existin
bargaining negotiation; bo r organization and its
d be ne fi t of th e la
o ow n pr op er ty , re al or personal, for the use an
•T members;
registered name; and
•To sue and be sued in its e or ga ni za tion and its members,
to be ne fi t th
tivities designed ts not contrary to law.
•To undertake all other ac el fa re an d ot he r pr oj ec
using, w
including cooperative, ho
 L abo r O rgan izat io n s
Rights o f L e gitim ate

or sp ec ia l la w to th e contrary, the
ot w it hsta nd in g an y provision of a general iz at io n s, including grants,
•N bor or gan
ties of legitimate la from fraternal
income and the proper on s th ey m ay rece iv e
dow m en ts, gift s, d on ations and contributi e ac tu ally, directly and
en ig n, w hi ch ar
ons, local or fore om taxes, duties and
and similar organizati os es, sh al l be fr ee fr
eir lawful purp wn only by a
exclusively used for th re in m ay be w it hd ra
as se ss m en ts . The ex emptions provided he . (Art. 251, LC)
other rep ea lin g th is p ro vi sion
special law expressly
 ART. 289. Visitorial Power.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly

authorized representative is hereby empowered to inquire
into financial activities of legitimate labor organizations
upon the filing of a complaint under oath and duly
supported by the written consent of at least twenty
percent (20%) of the total membership of the labor
organization concerned and to examine their books of
accounts and other records to determine compliance or
non-compliance with the law and to prosecute any
violations of the law and the union constitution and by-
laws: Provided, That such inquiry or examination shall not
be conducted during the sixty (60) days freedom period
nor within the thirty (30) days immediately preceding the
date of election of union officials.
 Check-off, assessments, union dues, and agency fees

Process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the

union recognized as the proper bargaining representative, or on
prior authorization from its employees, deducts union dues or
agency fees from the latter’s wages and remits them directly to
the union.

When so stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement or

authorized in writing by the employees concerned, the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules recognize it to be the duty of the
employer to deduct the sum equivalent to the amount of union
dues, as agency fees, from the employees' wages for direct
remittance to the union referred to as check off. No requirement
of written authorization from the non-union employees is
necessary if the non-union employees accept the benefits resulting
from the CBA.
 Check-off, assessments, union dues, and agency fees

Where the employer fails or refuses to implement a check-off

agreement, logic and prudence dictate that the union itself
undertake the collection of union dues and assessments from its
members (and agency fees from non-union employees); this, of
course, without prejudice to suing the employer for unfair labor
practice.

Special Assessment
Requirements for the validity of the special assessment for union’s
incidental expenses, attorney’s fees and representation expenses.
(Art 241 [250] Labor Code)
a. authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the
members at the general membership meeting called for the
purpose;
b. secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting; and
c. individual written authorization for check off duly signed by the
employees concerned.
 Union Dues

This refers to payments to meet the union’s general and current

obligations. The payment must be regular, periodic, and uniform.
Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be
evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection
and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and maintained
for that purpose.

Agency fees

Amounts deducted from the salary of non- union member of the collective
bargaining unit. It may be deducted without the consent of the concerned
employee.

No requirement of written authorization from the non-union employee is

imposed. The employee’s acceptance of benefits resulting from a collective
bargaining agreement justifies the deduction of agency fees from his pay
and the union’s entitlement thereto. In this aspect, the legal basis of the
union’s right to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory, but quasi-
contractual, deriving from the established principle that non-union
employees may not unjustly enrich themselves by benefiting from
employment conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
 Union Security

A generic term which is applied to and comprehends 'closed shop,'

'union shop,' 'maintenance of membership' or any other form of
agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to
acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting
employment.

Union Shop

When all new regular employees are required to join the union
within a certain period for their continued employment.

Maintenance of membership

when employees, who are union members as of the effective date

of the agreement, or who thereafter become members, must
maintain union membership as a condition for continued
employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the
bargaining unit, or the agreement is terminated
 Closed shop

An enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and

his employees or their representatives, no person may be
employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise
unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the
agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely
comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.

While not explicitly mentioned in the Labor Code, case law

recognizes that dismissal from employment due to the
enforcement of the union security clause in the CBA is another
just· cause for termination of employment. Similar to the
enumerated just causes in the
Labor Code, the violation of a union security clause amounts to a
commission of a wrongful act or omission out of one's own
volition; hence, it can be said that the dismissal process was
initiated not by the employer but by the employee's indiscretion.
 Dismissal via Union Security Clause

To validly terminate the employment of an

employee through the enforcement of the union ·security clause,
the following requisites must concur: (1) the union security clause
is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the
enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3)
there is sufficient evidence to
support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the
union.
§ Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the regular monthly-paid rank and file employees of San Miguel Corporation (SMC).
§ Petitioner was the certified bargaining agent for 20 years from 1987 to 1997.
§ Respondent is a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP) and was issued a charter certificate by PDMP in 1999.

§ Respondent filed three separate petitions for certification election to represent different divisions of SMC, but all three petitions were dismissed.
§ Petitioner filed a petition seeking the cancellation of respondent's registration and accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification.
§ The DOLE-NCR Regional Director dismissed the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation but canceled respondent's registration due to non-
compliance with the 20% membership requirement.

§ Respondent appealed to the BLR and their registration was reinstated.

§ Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the BLR denied it.
§ Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the BLR's decision.
§ Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the legal personality of respondent as a legitimate labor organization.
§ Petitioner argues that respondent is required to submit a list of members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
§ The Supreme Court agrees with petitioner's argument and rules that respondent did not meet the 20% membership requirement.
§ The Supreme Court also rules that PDMP, as a trade union center, cannot directly create a local or chapter. Therefore, the Certificate of Registration of
San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino is canceled and dropped from the rolls of legitimate
labor organizations.
The applicable Implementing Rules A duly registered federation or national union may directly
create a local or chapter by submitting to the DOLE Regional
enunciates a two-fold procedure for Office or to the BLR two copies of the following:
the creation of a chapter or a local. (a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national
union indicating the creation or establishment of the
The first involves the affiliation of an local/chapter;
independent union with a federation (b) The names of the local/chapter's officers, their addresses,
and the principal office of the local/chapter; and
or national union or industry union. (c) The local/chapter's constitution and by-laws; Provided,
The second, finding application in the That where the local/chapter's constitution and by-laws is the
same as that of the federation or national union, this fact shall
instant petition, involves the direct be indicated accordingly.
creation of a local or a chapter All the foregoing supporting requirements shall be certified
through the process of chartering. under oath by the Secretary or the Treasurer of the
local/chapter and attested to by its President.
PDMP was registered as a trade union
center and issued Registration Certificate What is being directly
No. FED-11558-LC by the BLR on 14 challenged is the personality of
February 1991. Until the certificate of respondent as a legitimate labor
registration of PDMP is cancelled, its organization and not that of
legal personality as a legitimate labor
organization subsists. Once a union PDMP. This being a collateral
acquires legitimate status as a labor attack, this Court is without
organization, it continues to be jurisdiction to entertain
recognized as such until its certificate of questions indirectly impugning
registration is cancelled or revoked in an
independent action for cancellation. the legitimacy of PDMP.
Although PDMP as a trade union center is a
legitimate labor organization, it has no power
to directly create a local or chapter. Thus,
SMPPEU-PDMP cannot be created under the
more lenient requirements for chartering, but
must have complied with the more stringent
rules for creation and registration of an
independent union, including the 20%
membership requirement
§ Asian Institute of Management (AIM), a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, and the Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association (AFA), a
labor organization composed of AIM faculty members.
§ The AFA filed a petition for certification election in 2007, seeking to represent a bargaining unit of 40 faculty members. AIM opposed the petition,
claiming that the AFA's members were not rank-and-file or supervisory employees, but rather managerial employees who were ineligible to join or
form labor unions under Article 245 of the Labor Code.
§ Respondent filed a petition for certification election to represent a bargaining unit of 40 faculty members.
§ Petitioner opposed the petition, claiming that the members of AFA are managerial employees.

§ Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of AFA's certificate of registration, alleging misrepresentation and that AFA is composed of managerial
employees.
§ The Med-Arbiter denied the petition for certification election, stating that AIM's faculty members are managerial employees.
§ AFA appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), which reversed the decision and ordered a certification election.

§ A separate case was filed by AIM for the cancellation of AFA's certificate of registration.
§ The Regional Director granted AIM's petition, but the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the decision and ordered the retention of AFA's registration.
§ AIM filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the decisions of DOLE and the BLR.
§ The CA affirmed the decisions of DOLE and the BLR, stating that managerial employees are not automatically disqualified from joining a labor
organization.
§ AIM filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the AFA, finding that its members
were not managerial employees. The Court held that while the AFA's members performed some functions that could be considered managerial, such
as developing and implementing the curriculum, these functions were not of the nature that would make them managerial employees under the Labor
Code.

§ The Court also ruled that even if the AFA's members were managerial employees, their inclusion in the union would not be a ground for the
cancellation of the union's registration. This clarifies the definition of managerial employees under the Labor Code and the right of faculty members to
form or join labor unions.
§ The local union, Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc. (B) (MSMG), filed a petition to annul the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission in an unfair labor practice case against its employer company and the officers of its national federation.

§ The collective bargaining agreement between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. includes provisions on union security and a labor education program fund.

§ A local union election was held, and the petitioner and other union officers were proclaimed as winners.

§ A Petition for Impeachment was filed with the national federation by the defeated candidates.

§ An audit of the local union funds was conducted, and the officers were cleared of charges.

§ The defeated candidates filed a Petition for Impeachment/Expulsion of the local union officers with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
which was dismissed.

§ The local union held a general membership meeting, and a committee was created to investigate non-attendance.

§ The company received a letter requesting the deduction of fines from the wages of union members who failed to attend the meeting.

§ The federation disapproved the fine, and the union officers protested.

§ The company advised the union not to deduct the fine and suggested resolving the matter with a government office.

§ The local union declared general autonomy from the federation.

§ The federation asked the company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in the education funds.

§ The company filed a Complaint for Interpleader with the DOLE, which was resolved in favor of the federation administering the collective bargaining
agreement.

§ The local unions filed a Petition for Audit and Examination of the federation and education funds, which was granted.
§ The federation placed the local union under trusteeship and appointed an administrator.

§ The administrator informed the company of new union officers and demanded the termination of the expelled officers.

§ The company terminated the officers, and a strike was declared by the local union.

§ The company terminated employees who participated in the strike and sent return-to-work notices to others.

§ The company transferred its administration and account/client servicing department to Tacloban, Leyte.

§ The company dismissed employees who refused to relocate.

§ The dismissed employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the DOLE.

§ The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, and the NLRC affirmed the decision.

§ The dismissed employees appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the dismissal and the legality of the strike.

§ The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid due to lack of due process and upheld the legality of the strike.

§ The Court also ruled that the company officials cannot be held personally liable.

§ The company was ordered to reinstate the employees or pay separation pay, and both the company and federation were
ordered to pay full backwages.
•November 1993: The Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA) wins a certification election
among the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI).
•PSEA-WATU (a rival union) protests the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor.
•PSEA sends a notice of disaffiliation to PAFLU (its mother federation), citing the supposed dereliction of
duty. PSEA affiliates with the National Congress of Workers (NCW) and changes its name to PSEA-NCW.
•PSEA-NCW enters into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI, which is registered with the Department
of Labor and Employment.
•PAFLU requests a copy of PSI's financial statement, unaware of PSEA's disaffiliation.
•PSI denies the request, citing PSEA's disaffiliation.
•PAFLU files a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI, its president, and personnel manager.
•PAFLU files another complaint against the personnel manager for participation in union activities.
•The complaints are consolidated.
•PAFLU amends its complaint to include the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU.
•PSI and PSEA-NCW move for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the disaffiliation issue is an inter-
union conflict.
•PSEA-NCW submits evidence of the rank and file employees disauthorizing PAFLU.
•The Labor Arbiter declares PSEA's disaffiliation invalid and finds PSI and PSEA-PAFLU guilty of
unfair labor practice.
•PSI and PSEA appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), but the decision is
upheld.
•PSI and PSEA-NCW file petitions for certiorari seeking a reversal of the NLRC's decision.
•The Solicitor General recommends granting both petitions.
•The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is upheld.
•PSEA's disaffiliation is deemed valid, and PSI's collective bargaining agreement with PSEA-NCW
is justified. The complaint for unfair labor practice filed by PAFLU is dismissed for lack of legal
personality.
•Policy considerations prioritize the claims of the local union over the national federation.
•The petitions of PSI and PSEA-NCW are granted, and the NLRC's decision is reversed and set
aside.
C a n cel l a t i o n o f
R e g i s t r a t i o n
 Grounds

e n t o r fr a u d in c o n nection
M isre p re se n ta tio n , false statem
A.
with:
e c o n st itu ti o n a n d by-laws
e a d o p ti o n o r ra ti fication of th o n and the
[Link] te s o f ra ti fi c a ti
n d m e n ts th e re to, the minu
or a m e
to o k pa rt in th e ra tification;
list of members who o f th e e le c ti o n o f o fficers,
h e e le c ti o n o f o ffic ers, minutes
2.t ;
and the list of voters

rs b y a v ote of a t least 2/3

V olu n ta ry D isso lu tio n by Membe
B. memb e rship votes
of it s g en era l

tion a l u nion or fed eration

Aff ilia tion /D isa ff ilia tion from na
C .
Material misrepresentation

The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not

require that the number of members appearing on
the documents in question should completely
dovetail. For as long as the documents and
signatures are shown to be genuine and regular
and the constitution and by-laws democratically
ratified, the union is deemed to have complied
with registration requirements.

The discrepancies as to the number of union

members involved as appeared on the documents
that supported the union’s application for
registration cannot be taken as an indication that
respondent misrepresented the information
contained in these documents. [Heritage]
Petitions for cancellation of registration of labor unions
with independent registration, chartered locals and
workers association and petitions for deregistration of
collective bargaining agreements shall be resolved by
the Regional Director. He/She may appoint a Hearing
Officer from the Labor Relations Division.
§ On May 4, 2005, Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. (SMMSC-Independent) was issued a Certificate of Registration by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Region IV-A.

§ On June 14, 2005, Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration against SMMSC-Independent, alleging violations of
labor code articles.

§ On August 26, 2005, the Regional Director of DOLE IV-A granted the petition, revoking the registration of SMMSC-Independent as a labor organization.

§ SMMSC-Independent appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), which granted their appeal in a decision dated June 14, 2006.

§ Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the BLR denied it in a resolution dated February 2, 2007.

§ Petitioner sought recourse with the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Certiorari, but the CA denied the petition.

§ Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was also denied.

§ The petitioner argues that SMMSC-Independent did not comply with the 20% union membership requirement due to the affidavits of recantation from
employees.

§ The affidavits claimed that the employees were forced and deceived into joining the union and expressed regret and a desire to abandon their membership.

§ The credibility of the affidavits is questioned, as they were prepared in advance and executed under suspicious circumstances.

§ Even if the affidavits were credible, the union still met the minimum membership requirement at the time of registration.

§ The alleged misrepresentation, fraud, and false statements by the union were not proven to be grave and compelling enough to cancel its registration.

§ The petition for cancellation of the union's registration is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
§ On January 24, 2000, the Kawashima Free Workers Union (KFWU) filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. IV.

§ KFWU submitted a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter issued on January 19, 2000, stating that it is affiliated with the national federation Phil. Transport & General Workers
Organization (PTGWO).

§ Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition, arguing that KFWU's membership violated Article 245 of the Labor Code and that it failed to submit its books of account.

§ In an Order dated May 17, 2000, the Med-Arbiter found KFWU's legal personality defective and dismissed the petition.

§ Respondent then filed a Petition for Cancellation of Charter/Union Registration of KFWU with DOLE Regional Office No. IV.

§ Meanwhile, KFWU appealed to the DOLE, which issued a Decision on August 18, 2000, reversing the Med-Arbiter's order and ordering the immediate conduct of a certification election.

§ The DOLE held that the membership of supervisory employees in KFWU did not affect its legal status as a labor organization.

§ Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the DOLE.

§ However, on appeal by the respondent, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DOLE's decision.

§ The CA held that a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot qualify as a legitimate labor organization.

§ KFWU filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA.

§ The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition to seek closure on two issues: the effects of mixed membership in a union and the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization.

§ The Court held that a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is not a legitimate labor organization.

§ It also held that an employer does not have the right to collaterally attack the legitimacy of a labor organization.

§ The Court reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the DOLE's decision, granting KFWU's petition for certification election
• June 6, 2001: KML files a petition for certification election with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE. KML claims to be a legitimate labor
organization of the rank and file employees of Legend International Resorts Limited (LEGEND).
• LEGEND moves to dismiss the petition, alleging that KML is not a legitimate labor organization due to its mixed membership of rank and file and
supervisory employees, in violation of the Labor Code.
• KML argues that even if some of its members are supervisory employees, the certification election can still proceed because the required
number of rank and file employees is sustained. KML also claims that its legitimacy as a labor union cannot be attacked in the certification
election proceedings.
• September 20, 2001: The Med-Arbiter dismisses the petition for certification election, finding that there are indeed supervisory employees in
KML's membership, making it not a legitimate labor organization. KML appeals to the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE.
• May 22, 2002: The Office of the Secretary of the DOLE grants KML's appeal, reversing the Med-Arbiter's decision. The office holds that KML's
legitimacy cannot be collaterally attacked and that the violation of Article 245 does not render the labor organization illegal.
• LEGEND files a motion for reconsideration, but it is denied.

• LEGEND files a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE.
KML argues that the decision upholding its legitimacy has become final and executory.
• September 18, 2003: The Court of Appeals upholds the decision of the Office of the Secretary of the DOLE, stating that the issue of KML's
legitimacy has already been settled. LEGEND files a motion for reconsideration, which is denied.
• LEGEND files a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the March 26, 2002 decision has not yet become final and
executory.
• The Supreme Court finds that LEGEND has timely appealed the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations to the Court of Appeals, and that the
cancellation of KML's registration should not retroact to its issuance. The court also upholds the ruling that the legitimacy of KML cannot be
collaterally attacked in a petition for certification election.
• The petition is partly granted, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in part and reversing it in part.
§ De Ocampo Memorial Schools, Inc. (De Ocampo) is a domestic corporation in the Philippines with two main divisions: the De
Ocampo Memorial Medical Center (DOMMC) and the De Ocampo Memorial Colleges (DOMC).
§ Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center - LAKAS (BMDOMMC) is issued a union registration on
September 26, 2003.
§ Bigkis Manggagawa sa De Ocampo Memorial School, Inc. (BMDOMSI) is issued a union registration on December 5, 2003.

§ De Ocampo files a petition to cancel the registration of BMDOMSI citing grounds of misrepresentation, false statement, fraud,
mixed membership, and inappropriate bargaining unit.
§ De Ocampo files a supplemental petition informing the cancellation of BMDOMMC's registration.

§ BMDOMSI denies the allegations and claims that De Ocampo is trying to impede the formation of the union.

§ The Department of Labor and Employment - National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR) ruled that BMDOMSI committed
misrepresentation and had an inappropriate bargaining unit.
§ BMDOMSI appeals the decision to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and the BLR reverses the Regional Director's findings.

§ De Ocampo files a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to annul the BLR decision.

§ The CA affirms the BLR decision, stating that there was no misrepresentation but there is a lack of mutuality and commonality of
interest among the union members.
§ De Ocampo files a motion for reconsideration but it is denied.

§ De Ocampo argues that BMDOMSI committed misrepresentation and fraud in its application for registration.

§ The Supreme Court denies the petition and upholds the decisions of the CA and BLR, stating that there was no fraud or
misrepresentation in BMDOMSI's registration application. The lack of mutuality and commonality of interest among union
members is not a ground for cancellation of registration.
 n /D is af f il iat io n
Affiliatio
Affiliation r] a federation is to
m o th e r u n io n [o
o f aff ili a tio n b y a local union with a sp e c t o f the terms and
The purpo se g p o w e r in re
a se b y c o lle c tiv e action the bargainin
incre conditions of labor.

e lf w ith a fe d e ra tio n or national union,

ion may affiliate its ffice which issued
An independent un ith th e R e g io n a l O
a t th e re p o rt o f a ffiliation to be filed w e fo llo w in g documents:
provided th tion be accompan ie d w ith th
e rtifi c a te o f re g is tr a
its c
o f d ire c to rs a p p ro ving the affiliation;
or union’s board ng the affiliation;
Resolution of the lab ip m e e tin g a p p ro vi
ral membersh ames of members
Minutes of the gene o r u n io n a n d th e n
u m b e r o f m e m b e rs comprising the lab
The total n ffiliation;
who approved the a fa vo r o f the independently
d e ra tio n in
rt ifi c a te o f a ffili a tion issued by the fe
The c e n; and
registered labor unio g u n io n is the incumbent
a ffili a tin
ye r concerned if the
Written no tic e to th e e m p lo
a nd 7, D e p t. O rd e r No. 40-03, s. 2003)
ections 6
bargaining agent. (S
 io n /D is af f il iat io n
Affiliat
l u n io n o r fe d e ra tio n does not divest
n a
re a ff ili a tio n o f a lo cal union to a natio s it g iv e th e mother federation
Me ithe r d o e
e lo c a l u n io n o f its own personality, ne of the local union.
th ac t ind epen d en tly
the license to
c t u n it p rim a ril y d esigned to secure
tin
lo c a l la b o r u n io n is a separate and dis tw e e n th e employer and their
A o w e r be
d m a in ta in a n e q u ality of bargaining p rs.
an employee- membe

Disaffiliation

fr o m its m o th er u nion or declare its

e right to disaffiliate association, is free to
A local union has th rate a nd vo lu n ta ry
nion, being a sepa isaffiliate or
autonomy. A local u g th e fr ee d o m to d
th e inte rests o f a ll its members includin n g s w h en circumstances
serve h ic h it b e lo
re its au to no m y fr o m the federation w u a ra nte e of freedom of
decla itu tio n a l g
nce with the const
warrant, in accorda association.
 io n /D is af f il iat io n
Affiliat
th e ir m o th e r fe d e ration on the
u n io n s h a ve th e right to separate from lo c a l u n ions do not owe
Loca l o c ia tio n s,
u nd th a t a s se p a ra te and voluntary ass e ra tio n to which they are
gro a tio n a l fe d
xistence to the n e sole essence of
their creation and e f th e ir m e m b e rs . Th
d, to the will o aining power
affiliated but, instea , th e c o m m o n b a rg
by collective action
affilia tio n is to in c re a se ,
en h a n c e m e n t a n d protection of their
e effective nd support local
of local unions for th e n w ith o u t su c c o r a
te re sts. A d m itte d ly , there are times wh rt g ro u p s, to secure justice for
in e r su p p o
rd, unaided by oth
unions may find it ha themselves.

o f a ss o c ia tio n , fr e e to serve their

th e lo c a l u nio n s re main the basic units e c o n st itu tion and bylaws
Yet o se d b y th
n inte re st s su b je c t to the restraints imp n c e th e affiliation upon the
ow o to re n o u
ration, and free als ch affiliation into
of the national fede n t w h ic h b ro u g h t su
e agreeme
terms laid down in th p ine Sk yl a n d ers v. NLRC [2002])
existence . (P hili p
BARGAINING UNIT
Labor organization is any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose
of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of employment.

Legitimate labor organization means any labor

organization duly registered with the Department of Labor
and Employment, and includes any branch or local
thereof.

Bargaining representative means a legitimate labor

organization or any officer or agent of such organization
whether or not employed by the employer.
A group of employees sharing mutual
interests within a given employer unit,
comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees in the Bargaining
employer unit or any specific
occupational or geographical
Unit
grouping within such employer unit
Eligibility for Membership
 Employees in Labor
Relations

Managers Supervisors Rank-and-file

 Employees in Labor Relations
MANAGERIAL
SUPERVISORS RANK-AND-FILE
EMPLOYEES

Managerial employee" is one who is vested with Supervisory employees are those who, in the All employees not falling within any of the
the powers or prerogatives to lay down and interest of the employer, effectively recommend above definitions are considered rank-and-file
execute management policies and/or to hire, such managerial actions if the exercise of such employees for purposes of the Labor Code.
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, authority is not merely routinary or clerical in
assign or discipline employees. nature but requires the use of independent The rank-and-file union and the supervisors'
judgment. union operating within the same establishment
They also refer to those whose primary duty may join the same federation or national union.
consists of the management of the Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for
establishment in which they are employed or of membership in the collective bargaining unit of
a department or subdivision thereof, and to the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist
other officers or members of the managerial or form separate collective bargaining units
staff. and/or legitimate labor organizations of their
own.
Managerial employees are not eligible to join,
assist or form any labor organization
Membership in legitimate labor organizations
Nature of Relationship
Member-labor union
The union has been evolved as an organization of collective strength for the
protection of labor against the unjust exactions of capital, but equally important is
the requirement of fair dealing between the union and its members, which is
fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two factors: "one is the degree of dependence
of the individual employee on the union organization; the other, a corollary of the
first, is the comprehensive power vested in the union with respect to the
individual."

The union maybe considered but the agent of its members for the purpose of
securing for them fair and just wages and good working conditions and is subject
to the obligation of giving the members as its principals all information relevant to
union and labor matters entrusted to it.
Membership in legitimate labor organizations
Nature of Relationship
Member-Labor Union-Federation
A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is
affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to
the will of its members.

Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does
it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It
only gives rise to a contract of agency.

As such principals, the unions are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek certification as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.
Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization
• No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of a
legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine
and forfeiture be imposed;

• The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers
and representatives of all financial transactions as provided for in the
constitution and by-laws of the organization;

• The members shall directly elect their officers in the local union, as well as
their national officers in the national union or federation to which they or
their local union is affiliated, by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. No
qualification requirement for candidacy to any position shall be imposed
other than membership in good standing in subject labor organization. The
secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of
Labor and Employment with a list of the newly-elected officers, together with
the appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of
funds within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or from the
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor organization;
Rights and Conditions of Membership in a Labor Organization
• The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any question of major
policy affecting the entire membership of the organization, unless the nature of the
organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case, the board
of directors of the organization may make the decision in behalf of the general membership;
• No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in membership any
individual who belongs to a subversive organization or who is engaged directly or indirectly in
any subversive activity;
• No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for
election as a union officer or for appointment to any position in the union;
• No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues, or other
contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly
authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws;
• Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be evidenced by a
receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the
organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose;
• The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those
expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws or those expressly authorized by written
resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the
purpose;
 Summary of Rights and Conditions of Membership
Against checking off from employees RIGHT TO INFORMATION RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
any amount due to him/her for special
FISCAL RIGHTS assessments, attorney’s fees, The members right to:
IN DECISION-MAKING
negotiation fees or any other
extraordinary fees without an individual Require the treasurer and Determine by secret ballot any
This Pertains to the member’s
concerned union officers to render a question of major policy affecting
rights: written authorization duly signed by the
true and correct account of the funds
employee the entire membership of the
at least once a year within 30 days organization, unless such secret
Against arbitrary and excessive
after the close of its fiscal year and at ballot becomes impractical
initiation fees nor arbitrary, Against unauthorized collection of
contributions or unauthorized such other times as may be required To initiate impeachment or
excessive or oppressive fine and
by a resolution of a majority of the expulsion proceedings against a
forfeiture disbursement of organization’s money
union members and upon vacating
or funds union officer or member
his/her office
Against unauthorized collection of
any fees, dues, or other Full and detailed report of financial
transactions (including income, revenue Require that the account be duly
contributions, or disbursement of
audited and verified by affidavit and a
the organization’s money or funds and expenses)
copy to be furnished to the DOLE
by an unauthorized person NOTE:
To access financial records
To inspect the books of accounts and
To claim receipt for every payment To vote for the salaries of the Any violation of the above rights
officers in the organization other financial records of the union
of fees, dues, or other and conditions of membership
and require full and detailed reports
contributions To vote on proposed special shall be a ground for cancellation
on all financial transactions
assessments and deduct the same only of union registration or expulsion
Against imposition of special with individual written authorization of of officers from office, whichever
Be informed on the provisions of its
assessment or other extraordinary the members is appropriate. At least thirty
constitutions and by-laws collective
fees unless authorized by written percent (30%) of the members of a
bargaining agreement, the prevailing
resolution of majority of all the union or any member or members
members in a general membership
POLITICAL RIGHTS labor relations system and all their
specially concerned may report
This includes the member’s right to rights and obligations under existing
meeting such violation to the Bureau.
vote and be voted for, including the labor laws.
right to be appointed, subject to
qualification and disqualification To seek investigation of any
requirements. irregularities
Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v. CA, August 30, 2006
• Enrique Tamondong III was hired by CAPASCO as Assistant to the Personnel Manager and was later promoted to Personnel
Superintendent.
•Tamondong actively participated in the formation of a union among supervisory personnel at CAPASCO.
•CAPASCO warned Tamondong to discontinue his union activities, but he ignored the warning.
•CAPASCO terminated Tamondong's employment due to loss of trust and confidence.
•Tamondong filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
•The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tamondong and ordered CAPASCO to reinstate him with backwages and other benefits.
•CAPASCO appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which modified the decision, dismissing the complaint
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
•The NLRC ordered CAPASCO to pay Tamondong 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave.
•Tamondong and the union filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted their petition and reinstated the labor
arbiter's decision.
•CAPASCO filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it.
•CAPASCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
•The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that the proper remedy for CAPASCO was to file a petition for review on certiorari.
•The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that Tamondong was a supervisory employee, not a managerial employee,
and therefore eligible to join the union.
•The Supreme Court held that CAPASCO committed unfair labor practice by dismissing Tamondong for his union activities.
•The Court also ruled that CAPASCO failed to prove that Tamondong was a confidential employee.
•The decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the labor arbiter's decision, is affirmed.
Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. v. CA, August 30, 2006

What is the kind of employee involved?

SC: Supervisory employee. In its decision, the CA said a Memorandum dated 12 September 1996 required Tamondong to
observe fixed daily working hours from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm, very uncharacteristic of a
managerial employee. One of the essential characteristics of an employee holding a managerial rank is that he is not
subjected to the rigid observance of regular office hours or maximum hours of work. He may have possessed enormous
powers and was performing important functions that goes with the position of Personnel Superintendent, nevertheless,
there was no clear showing that he is at liberty, by using his own discretion and disposition, to lay down and execute
major business and operational policies for and in behalf of CAPASCO. He was not shown to be was authorized to act in
the interest of the company using his independent judgment. At the most, the record merely showed that Tamondong
informed and warned rank-and-file employees with respect to their violations of CAPASCO’s rules and regulations. Being a
supervisory employee of CAPASCO, he cannot be prohibited from joining or participating in the union activities of CUSE.
Pepsi Cola Products v. Secretary of Labor, August 10, 1999
Sometime in 1990, a pet cert (case 1) was filed Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF (Union) seeking to be the
exclusive bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI) as an affiliate of Union de Obreros
Estivadores de Filipinas (federation) composed of two (2) rank and file unions, Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity (PCLU) and Pepsi-
Cola Employees Union of the Philippines (PEUP). PEPSI filed a petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke Charter Affiliation
(case 2) on the grounds that (a) the members of the Union were managers and (b) a supervisors' union can not affiliate
with a federation whose members include the rank and file union of the same company. PEPSI presented a motion to re-
open the case 1 since it was not furnished with a copy of the Petition for Certification Election. PEPSI submitted its position
paper in case 2. Meantime, PEPSI filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal with the Secretary of Labor on the
date set for case 1 and motion to suspend which was granted on 18 Oct 1990. The SOLE denied the appeal and the MR for
case 1. While case 2 was pending, PEPSI found its way to the SC via petition for certiorari relating to three (3) cases filed
with the Med-Arbiter including Cancellation of Registration Certificate No. 11492-LC in favor of the Union (case 3). SC
granted the TRO and injunction. PEPSI filed a Supplemental Reply that officials of both the PCLU and PEUP are top ranking
officers of UOEF, the federation of supervisors' union. The SOLE filed a rejoinder saying that an employer has no legal
standing to question the validity of a certification election, as a rule, a certification election is the sole and exclusive
concern of the employees and that the employer is definitely an intruder or a mere bystander.

Should case 2 be granted in PEPSI’s favor?

SC: No. The grounds for the cancellation of the registration certificate of a labor organization are provided in Section 7 of
Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, and the inclusion of managerial employees is not one
of the grounds. UOEF remains to be a legitimate labor organization.
Pepsi Cola Products v. Secretary of Labor, August 10, 1999
May a federation be composed of unions of supervisory employees and rank-and-file employees combined?

SC: Moot and academic. In 1992, the union withdrew from Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas but for discussion, it
depends. Article 245 of the Labor Code states that. "Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor
organization of the rank and file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organization of their own. A local
supervisors' union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of union of rank-and-file employees
where that federation actively participates in union activity in the company.

The limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors' wanting to join a rank-and-file union. The prohibition extends to a
supervisors' local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of
rank and file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-
mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.

Should the petition for certiorari prosper?

Yes, an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the petition for cancellation of the
registration certificate of the respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time the respondent union filed its
petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order directing the cancellation.

May confidential employees join a union?

No. What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed, as elucidated in several case. In
applying the doctrine of necessary implication, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees are supposed
to be on the side of the employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that its interest are well protected. The
employer is not assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union members. Collective bargaining in
such a situation can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the position of
confidential employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of confidential
employees were written in the provision.
San Miguel Foods v. SMC Supervisors and Exempt Union, August 1, 2011
•In a previous case, certain employees of San Miguel Foods, Inc. are not considered confidential employees and are allowed to form a bargaining
unit for collective bargaining.
•The employees of San Miguel Corporation Magnolia Poultry Products Plants in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis constitute a single bargaining unit.
•The Department of Labor and Employment conducted pre-election conferences but there was a discrepancy in the list of eligible voters.
•A certification election was conducted on September 30, 1998, and the results showed a majority of "Yes" votes.
•Petitioner filed objections and challenges to certain employees' eligibility to vote.
•The Med-Arbiter issued orders directing the parties to submit proof and evidence regarding the eligibility of voters.
•The final tally of votes showed a majority of "Yes" votes, and the Med-Arbiter certified the respondent as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
supervisors and exempt employees of the Magnolia Poultry Products Plants.
•The decision was appealed, and the DOLE Undersecretary affirmed the certification with some modification.
•Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the DOLE Undersecretary.
•The Court of Appeals affirmed the certification with modification, excluding certain positions from the bargaining unit.
•Petitioner filed the present petition raising issues regarding the expansion of the bargaining unit and the inclusion of certain positions.
•The Court explained that the employees of the three plants constitute a single bargaining unit based on the community or mutuality of interests.
•The position of Payroll Master and other positions with access to salary and compensation data are not excluded from the bargaining unit.
•The positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant are considered confidential employees and are excluded from the bargaining
unit.
•The issue regarding the coverage of employees in the bargaining unit has already been settled and cannot be rehashed.
•The employer has no standing to question the certification election, unless the employer files the petition pursuant to a request to bargain
collectively. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) v. Standard Chartered
Bank, April 22, 2008

•Negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Petitioner and Standard Chartered Bank began in May 2000, as the
previous CBA had expired.
•Due to a deadlock in negotiations, Petitioner filed a Notice of Strike and the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the
dispute.
•On May 31, 2001, the Secretary issued an Order directing the parties to execute the CBA incorporating the agreements reached in negotiations.
•Unfair labor practice charges and claims for damages were dismissed.
•Petitioner and the Bank filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the Secretary.
•Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their petition was dismissed and the Secretary's orders were affirmed.
•Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, raising specific grounds for appeal.
•The case has been rendered moot and academic due to the execution of a new CBA, but the likelihood of similar issues arising in future
negotiations warrants resolution.
•The disputed provisions in the CBA are the exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit and the adjustment of remuneration for
employees in acting capacities.
•Petitioner proposed exclusions for specific employees, but the Secretary maintained the previous exclusions as petitioner failed to provide
evidence supporting their removal.
•The qualification of certain employees as confidential employees was examined based on previous rulings, and the Secretary and the CA found
that they should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
•Petitioner failed to substantiate their claim that these employees are not confidential, and their reliance on jurisprudence without explanation is
insufficient.
•The Secretary and the CA concluded that employees in acting capacities should receive additional remuneration, which the Court upholds.
•Judicial review is limited to questions of law, and the factual findings of labor officials are given great respect unless there is evidence of whimsical
or capricious judgment.
Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery v. Asia Brewery, August
3, 2010

•ABI entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-
INDEPENDENT), the exclusive bargaining representative of ABI’s rank-and-file employees.
•The CBA defined the scope of the bargaining unit, excluding certain positions from it.
•A dispute arose when ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees, believing their membership violated the CBA.
•BLMA-INDEPENDENT claimed that this action restrained the employees' right to self-organization and brought the matter to the
grievance machinery.
•The case went to arbitration, and the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of BLMA-INDEPENDENT, stating that the excluded
employees should be included within the bargaining unit.
•On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision, declaring that the employees were excluded from
the bargaining unit and their membership was violative of the CBA.
•BLMA-INDEPENDENT filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.
•The Court held that the secretaries/clerks and checkers should be considered rank-and-file employees and not confidential
employees.
•The Court also ruled that ABI's discontinuation of union dues deduction did not constitute unfair labor practice as it was a simple
disagreement in the interpretation of the CBA provision.
•The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and declared that the secretaries/clerks and checkers are eligible to join
the Union of the rank-and-file employees.
Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division v. Ferrer-Calleja, June 20, 1988
•Petitioner TUPAS seeks review of resolution dismissing its appeal from the order for a certification election.
•TUPAS was the sole collective bargaining representative from 1984 to 1987 with a 3-year CBA.
•TUPAS filed an amended notice of strike on September 28, 1987 to pressure the company for a new CBA.
•NEW ULO registered as a labor union on October 8, 1987.
•TUPAS staged a strike on October 12, 1987, but an injunction was obtained and parties agreed to negotiate a new
CBA.
•NEW ULO filed a petition for a certification election on October 13, 1987.
•TUPAS accused NEW ULO of being mostly members of the Iglesia ni Kristo sect and accused the company of using
NEW ULO to defeat TUPAS' bargaining rights.
•Med-Arbiter ordered the certification election on November 17, 1987.
•TUPAS appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) but was dismissed on January 27, 1988.
•TUPAS' motion for reconsideration was denied on March 17, 1988.
•TUPAS filed a petition alleging excess of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion.
•The court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the order for a certification election.
•Court upheld the right of members of the Iglesia ni Kristo sect to form their own union.
•Negotiating a new CBA within the freedom period does not prevent rival union from challenging TUPAS' majority
status.
•Certification election is the best forum to determine majority status.
•Court will not interfere with the holding of a certification election.
San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma, September 21, 1994
•Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a petition to set aside the Resolution and Order declaring
respondent union as the sole bargaining agent.
•The North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union filed a petition for certification election.
•Petitioner opposed the petition and argued for separate bargaining units for each sales office.
•Atty. Batalla withdrew petitioner's opposition and agreed to consider all sales offices as one bargaining unit.
•Respondent union won the election and was certified as the bargaining agent.
•Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor but was denied.
•Petitioner claims that the respondent union does not represent an appropriate bargaining unit and that it is not
bound by its lawyer's agreement.
•The court ruled that the existence of prior collective bargaining history is not decisive in determining the
appropriate bargaining unit.
•The court found that there is similarity of employment status and mutual interests among the sales personnel in
the north Luzon area.
•Petitioner's claim regarding its lawyer's mistake was rejected, and the court held that the negligence of
petitioner's lawyers binds the petitioner.
•The court emphasized the importance of considering the interests of the employees in determining the
appropriate bargaining unit.
•The court affirmed the certification of respondent union as the sole bargaining agent.
University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, July 14, 1992
•The University of the Philippines filed a special civil action of certiorari to nullify an order by Director Pura Ferrer-
Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations, which stated that professors, associate professors, and assistant
professors are rank-and-file employees and should be represented by one labor organization along with other non-
academic employees.
•The case was initiated by a petition filed by the "Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP" (ONAPUP),
seeking a certification election among non-academic employees.
•Another labor union, the "All UP Workers' Union," filed a comment as an intervenor, stating that it aims to unite
all UP rank-and-file employees in one union but argued that academic non-teaching personnel should not be
included.
•The University stated that there should be two unions, one for academic and one for non-academic personnel,
due to the dichotomy of interests and rules governing these employee groups.
•Director Calleja ruled that all regular rank-and-file employees, including academic and non-academic personnel,
should be part of the same organizational unit.
•The University sought clarification on the coverage of the term "rank-and-file" personnel and requested the
exclusion of employees in supervisory positions among non-academic personnel and those in teaching staff with
the rank of Assistant Professor or higher.
•The ONAPUP did not oppose the University's classification of rank-and-file employees, while the "All UP Workers'
Union" opposed it.
University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, July 14, 1992

•Director Calleja issued an order stating that professors are rank-and-file employees and eligible to join unions and
vote in certification elections.
•The University filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that professors have managerial powers and should not
be classified as rank-and-file employees.
•The motion for reconsideration was denied by Director Calleja.
•The University brought the case to the Court, seeking the nullification of the Director's orders.
•Two issues were raised: whether professors are high-level employees and whether a separate collective
bargaining unit should be formed for academic employees.
•The Court affirmed the Director's ruling that professors are rank-and-file employees and do not exercise
managerial functions.
•The Court also modified the Director's order, stating that non-academic rank-and-file employees of the University
of the Philippines will form a bargaining unit separate from academic employees, who may organize themselves
into a separate unit if desired.
•The certification election will involve only the non-academic rank-and-file personnel of the University in Diliman,
Manila, Los Baños, and the Visayas.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, February 18, 2013

•In 1998, the Lepanto Capataz Union filed a petition for a consent election to represent 139 capatazes
(supervisors) of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company.
•Lepanto opposed the petition, arguing that the Union was seeking a certification election and that the capatazes
were already members of the Lepanto Employees Union (LEU), the current collective bargaining agent for rank-
and-file employees.
•In 2000, the Med-Arbiter ruled that the capatazes could form a separate bargaining unit because their job
functions were different from the rank-and-file employees.
•The ruling stated that the capatazes supervise and instruct miners, assess and evaluate performance, make
reports, and recommend new systems and procedures.
•The ruling also noted that the capatazes had disaffiliated from LEU and no longer participated in the renegotiation
of the collective bargaining agreement.
•A certification election was ordered among the capataz employees to determine if they wanted the Lepanto
Capataz Union to represent them.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining v. The Lepanto Capataz Union, February 18, 2013

•The election took place in 2000, and the Union garnered the majority of the valid votes cast.
•Lepanto presented an opposition/protest on the day of the certification election, but later opted not to submit a
position paper and contended that the issues did not require one.
•In 2001, the Med-Arbiter certified the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the capatazes.
•Lepanto appealed the decision to the DOLE Secretary, who affirmed the decision in 2002.
•Lepanto then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed for failure to file a
motion for reconsideration.
•The Court of Appeals denied Lepanto's motion for reconsideration.
•Lepanto appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a motion for reconsideration was not necessary and that
the capatazes should be considered rank-and-file employees.
•The Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration was required before filing a petition for certiorari and
that capatazes were not rank-and-file employees but could form their own union.
•The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the DOLE Secretary, stating that the factual findings of her
subordinates were supported by substantial evidence and should be respected.
International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) v. Quisumbing, June 8, 2000

Is there basis for a valid classification?

None. The "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary
rates. The Constitution specifically provides that labor is entitled to "humane conditions of work." These conditions are not
restricted to the physical workplace — the factory, the office or the field — but include as well the manner by which employers
treat their employees. The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all." Similarly,
the Labor Code provides that the State shall "ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed.” Article 135, for
example, prohibits and penalizes the payment of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee for work
of equal value. Notably, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Article 7 thereof, provides:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of
work, which ensure, in particular: a. Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being
guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work. The practice of the School of
according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of the Court.

What does equal pay for equal work mean?

Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid
similar salaries.

Are international schools exempted from equal pay for equal work?

No. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have
similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions.
International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) v. Quisumbing, June 8, 2000

Should they be included in one bargaining unit?

No. A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law." It does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention
to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also
shows that these groups were always treated separately.

Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-hires perform similar functions under the
same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to local-hires. These benefits,
such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance, are reasonably related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires
would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.
 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,Inc. vs. Ilocos Professional and Technical
EmployeesUnion IPTEU), September 09, 2015

•Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the beverage business.
•Respondent Ilocos Professional and Technical Employees Union (IPTEU) is a registered labor organization.
•IPTEU filed a petition for certification election to represent a bargaining unit of 22 rank-and-file professional and technical
employees of CCBPI Ilocos Norte Plant.
•CCBPI argued that some employees were supervisory or confidential and ineligible for inclusion in IPTEU.
•The Mediator-Arbiter granted IPTEU's petition after determining that the members are rank-and-file employees.
•CCBPI appealed the decision but was informed that the order granting the certification election is not subject to appeal.
•The certification election was scheduled and held, but CCBPI filed a protest questioning the conduct and mechanics of the
election.
•The challenged votes were opened and canvassed, and IPTEU was proclaimed as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent.
•CCBPI appealed the decision, arguing that there is already an existing bargaining representative and that the certification election
should be declared null and void.
•The appeal was denied, and CCBPI filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
•The CA denied the petition, and CCBPI filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied.
•CCBPI filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA decision.
•The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, stating that the determination of factual issues is within the jurisdiction of the labor
authorities.
•It was ruled that the employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not part of the existing bargaining unit and are not
confidential employees.
•The unresolved notice of appeal and motion to suspend proceedings filed by CCBPI had no effect on the case.
•The CA decision affirming the dismissal of CCBPI's appeal and upholding the certification of IPTEU as the bargaining agent was
upheld.
BARGAINING AGENT
Atty. Kristy Jane M. Balino, LL.M.
 Exclusive Bargaining Representation &
Workers’ Participation

Art.267
The labor
organization
designated or
selected by the Labor organization is any union or association of
majority of the employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose
employees in an of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
appropriate concerning terms and conditions of employment.
collective
bargaining unit Legitimate labor organization means any labor
shall be the organization duly registered with the Department of Labor
exclusive and Employment, and includes any branch or local
representative of thereof.
the employees in
such unit for the Bargaining representative means a legitimate labor
purpose of organization or any officer or agent of such organization
collective whether or not employed by the employer.
bargaining.
A group of employees sharing mutual
interests within a given employer unit,
comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees in the Bargaining
employer unit or any specific
occupational or geographical
Unit
grouping within such employer unit
A group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less than
all of the entire body of employees,
which the collective interest of all the
employees, consistent with equity to Appropriate
the employer, indicate to be best Bargaining
suited to serve the reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the Unit (ABU)
collective bargaining provisions of the
law.
(1) Will of employees (Globe Doctrine);
(2) Affinity and unity of employees'
interest, such as substantial similarity of Factors to
work and duties, or similarity of determine
compensation and working
conditions; (also substantial mutual ABU
interests rule)
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and [4-way test for
(4) (4) employment status, such as ABU or factors
temporary, seasonal and for
probationary employees. determination]
 Community or Mutuality of Interests Prior Collective Bargaining History Test
Rule
The existence of a prior collective
The basic test of an asserted bargaining bargaining history is neither decisive nor
unit's acceptability is whether or not it is conclusive in the determination of what
fundamentally the combination which constitutes an appropriate bargaining
will best assure to all employees the unit.
exercise of their collective bargaining
rights

Community or Mutuality of Interests Similarity of employment Status Test

Rule
The status of employment is another
The employees sought to be important test in the determination of
represented by the collective which employees shall be included or
bargaining agent must have excluded from a proposed bargaining unit.
substantial mutual interests in terms There are certain positions that are by their
of employment and working conditions very nature, place the employees in a
as evinced by the type of work they position wherein a conflict of duties and
perform. interests exists.
 Will of employees (Globe Doctrine)

3 N.L.R.B. 294 (Aug 11, 1937) The company is involved in The petitioning unions claim
automobile parts that there are THREE
In the Matter of the Globe manufacturing. All unions are separate units for collective
Machine and Stamping & affiliated with the American bargaining within the plant
Metal Polishers, Federation of Labor. One claims while the 4th one claims that
International Association of to represent the polishers and
they cannot be subdivided
buffers in the plant, one claims
Machinists, Federal Labor and must be treated as one.
to represent the punch press
Union and United operators and the other claims All parties agreed that there
Automobile Workers the balance of the production should be an election.
America and maintenance workers and Records support a division
finally, one admits to and a unification where the
4 rival unions vied to the be membership all of the considerations are so evenly
the ABU employees within the group
balanced.
claimed by the unions.
 Will of employees (Globe Doctrine)

On the elections of the

In this case, the determining
factor is the DESIRE OF THE three (3) groups will
MEN themselves. Thus, the depend the determination
of the appropriate In Philippine jurisprudence,
court ordered elections for
bargaining unit for the will or desire of the
those engaged in polishing;
purposes of collective employees is the most
elections for those engaged
bargaining. Those who decisive test in determining
in press work; elections for
the appropriate bargaining
those engaged in choose a unified unit will
unit.
production EXCLUSIVE of constitute a single
the polishers and punch appropriate unit , those
press workers, clerical and that do not will form
supervisory employees. separate and distinct
appropriate units.
 Before collective bargaining can take
place, the bargaining representative is
first identified [Art. 268 and Art. 269]

Legitimate Exclusive
Labor Organization
Labor Bargaining
[LO]
Organization Representative
[LLO] [EBR]
Art. 262 Duty to Bargain Collectively
Art. 264. Duty to Bargain Collectively When There exists a
in the Absence of Collective Collective Bargaining Agreement. When there is a
Bargaining Agreements. In the collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain
absence of an agreement or other collectively shall also mean that neither party shall
terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime.
voluntary arrangement providing for
However, either party can serve a written notice to
a more expeditious manner of terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days
collective bargaining, it shall be the prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both
parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force
duty of employer and the and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
representatives of the employees to agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new
bargain collectively in accordance agreement is reached by the parties.
with the provisions of this Code.

Art. 263. Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively.

The duty to bargain collectively means the
performance of a mutual obligation to meet and 4 ways to commit ULP of
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith duty to bargain: (1) failure
for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with or refusal to meet or
convene; (2) evading the
respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms
purposes of bargaining; (3)
and conditions of employment including proposals
for adjusting any grievances or questions arising good faith in bargaining;
under such agreement and executing a contract (4) gross violation of
incorporating such agreements if requested by economic provisions
either party but such duty does not compel any
party to agree to a proposal or to make any
concession.
 Kiok Loy v. NLRC, January 22, 1986

Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa (Union) won a certification election on October 3, 1978 and was certified as the sole bargaining agent for Sweden
Ice Cream Plant on November 29, 1978.
The Company's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 25, 1978.
The Union provided the Company with two copies of its proposed collective bargaining agreement on December 7, 1978, but received no response.
The Union requested collective bargaining negotiations and counter proposals from the Company, but both requests were ignored.
On February 14, 1979, the Union filed a "Notice of Strike" with the Bureau of Labor Relations due to unresolved economic issues.
Jurisdiction

Conciliation proceedings failed, leading to the case being certified to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.
Hearing dates were set, but the Company failed to submit required documents and made multiple requests for postponements, causing delays.
On June 4, 1979, the labor arbiter ruled that the Company had waived its right to present further evidence and considered the case submitted for
resolution.
On July 20, 1979, the NLRC declared the Company guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain and approved the Union's proposed collective bargaining
agreement.
The Company filed a petition against the NLRC's decision, claiming violations of procedural due process and unreasonable collective bargaining
agreement.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, but reconsidered and given due course.
The Court concluded that the Company had engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to negotiate in good faith.
The Court rejected the Company's argument that the collective bargaining agreement lacked its consent and that implementation would lead to
financial burden.
The Court affirmed the NLRC's decision and stated that respect should be given to the reasonableness of any collective bargaining agreement
determined by the NLRC.
The petition was ultimately dismissed, lifting the temporary restraining order.

xxx

The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely: (1) possession of
the status of majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation provided for
by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain. It has been indubitably established that (1) respondent Union
was a duly certified bargaining agent; (2) it made a definite request to bargain, accompanied with a copy of the proposed Collective Bargaining
Agreement, to the Company not only once but twice which were left unanaswered. A Company's refusal to make counterproposal if considered in
relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is specially true where the Union's request for a counter proposal is left
unanswered.
 ALU v. Ferrer-Calleja, May 5, 1989

•Associated Labor Unions (ALU) filed a special civil action to overturn the decision of the director regarding a certification election at GAW Trading,
Inc.
•ALU informed GAW Trading, Inc. that majority of its employees have authorized ALU to be their bargaining representative and requested a conference
for an initial Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Jurisdiction

•GAW Trading Inc. acknowledged ALU as the sole bargaining agent and set a conference for negotiation.
•ALU and GAW Trading Inc. signed and executed the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
•Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa GAW (NAMGAW) went on strike after failing to get GAW Trading
Inc. to negotiate with them and accept them as the bargaining representative.
•GAW Trading Inc. filed a petition for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction against the strike, which was deemed illegal.
•GAW Lumad Labor Union (GALLU-PSSLU) filed a Certification Election petition, but it was deemed an intervenor until compliance with the
subscription requirement.
•ALU and GAW Trading Inc. filed the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Ministry of Labor and Employment.
•Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election in all branches of GAW Trading Inc. ALU filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was treated as an
appeal.
•Bureau of Labor Relations Director granted ALU's appeal and set aside the Med-Arbiter's order.
•Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) and Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU) sought reconsideration of the Director's decision,
opposed by GAW Trading Inc. and ALU.
•Director's decision was reversed, ordering the holding of a certification election due to defects in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
•The Collective Bargaining Agreement was not properly submitted and ratified, and there was a lack of proof of posting in the establishment.
•One hundred eighty-one workers who initially ratified the agreement denied and repudiated it.
•The contract bar rule does not apply due to doubts about petitioner's status as the exclusive bargaining representative.
•The evidence of the repudiation of the agreement can be considered.
•Insufficient evidence supports the claim that employees are enjoying the benefits of the agreement.
•A certification election is affirmed, and the temporary restraining order is lifted.
 Jurisdictional
Duty to Bargain Collectively
Majority While it is a mutual obligation
of the parties to bargain, the
employer is not under any
obligation to initiate contract

Mutual obligation to meet and

Status negotiation unless jurisdictional
conditions are present [Kiok
convene promptly and expeditiously Loy Doctrine]
in good faith
Negotiating an agreement with
respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of
Proof of
employment including proposals for Majority
Purpose

adjusting any grievances or questions

arising under such agreement
Executing a contract incorporating Status
such agreements if requested by
either
party
Does not not compel any party to
agree to a proposal or to make any
Demand to With the jurisdictional
concession. requirements, collective
Bargain bargaining should begin
within 12 months from the
certification of the EBR
 Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v.
Marcelo Enterprises

There was no violation of duty to

Duty to Bargain
collectively bargain the filing of the Notice
Collectively
of strike + 2 strikes were illegal. The
employer's basic right to bargain National Union of Restaurant Workers (PTUC) V.
collectively only with the representative C1R
supported by the majority of its employees There was no violation of duty to collectively
bargain. There is a party serves a written notice
in each of the bargaining units upon the employer making some demands the
latter shall reply thereto not later than 10 days
from receipt thereof, but this condition is merely
Liberty Flour Mills Employees Association v. Liberty Flour procedural, and as much its non-compliance
Mills, December 29, 1989
cannot be deemed to be an act of unfair labor
No other union contested the exclusive representation practice. did not ignore the letter sent by the
of the Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) union so much so that they called a meeting to
Consequently, there was no more legal impediment discuss its demands
that stood on the way as to the validity and
enforceability of the provisions of the collective
bargaining agreement entered into by and between
respondent corporation and respondent union. The
certification of the collective bargaining agreement by
the Bureau of Labor Relations is not required to put a
stamp of validity to such contract. Thus, enforcement of
the union shop clause was valid despite lack of
certification.
Duty to Bargain
Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran, September 13,
2000
Collectively
On December 1992, Salvador Abtria, then President of respondent union, Association of Employees
and Faculty of Letran, initiated the renegotiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with
Colegio de San Juan de Letran for the last two (2) years of the CBA's five (5) year lifetime from
1989-1994. On the same year, the union elected a new set of officers wherein private respondent
Eleanor Ambas emerged as the newly elected President. Ambas wanted to continue the
renegotiation of the CBA but Letran, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already
prepared for signing by the parties. The parties submitted the disputed CBA to a referendum by
the union members, who eventually rejected the said CBA. Letran accused the union of
bargaining in bad faith, the LA ruled in favor of Letran but NLRC reversed. The union notified NCMB
of its intention to strike. In the meantime, the unsigned CBA was disregarded and Ambas’s work
schedule was changed and was submitted to GM. Letran unilaterally suspended the ongoing
negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere information that a
petition for certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization. Letran did not act
on the same prompting the union to file a notice to strike which now includes Ambas’ dismissal as
she was dismissed in the interim. The union struck, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction. SOLE declared ULP
and ordered Ambas’ reinstatement. SC: Letran was guilty of ULP. The union complied with the
duty to bargain collectively when it presented its proposals for the CBA to Letran on February 7,
1996. On the other hand, Letran devised ways and means in order to prevent the negotiation.
 San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO v. Confesor,
September 19, 1996

Magnolia and SMFI became distinct entities with separate

Duty to Bargain
juridical personalities. Thus, they cannot belong to a single
bargaining unit. in determining an appropriate bargaining unit,
Collectively
the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests.
Considering the spin-offs, the companies would consequently
have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the
nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of Manila Electric Co. v. Quisumbing, January 27,
employment. Interests of employees in the different companies
perforce differ. 1999

A CBA negotiated within six months after the

expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the
day immediately following such date and if
agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends on the
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. NLRC, agreement of the parties.
September 7, 1998
[negotiation bar rule sets in]
CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with
public interest. It goes without saying, however, that o
nly provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpr
eted and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a
contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is no
t a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whats
oever to its implementation.
Duty to Bargain
Collectively New Pacific Timber v. NLRC, March 17, 2000

The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is certified as the sole bargaining representative of the employees of New Pacific
Timber & Supply Co., Inc.
NFL negotiates for better terms and conditions of employment, but faces resistance from the company.
NFL files a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company for refusal to bargain collectively.
The Executive Labor Arbiter declares the company guilty of unfair labor practice and the CBA proposals submitted by
NFL as the new CBA.
The company appeals the decision to the NLRC, but the appeal is dismissed.
The company files a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, but the petition is dismissed.
The case is remanded to the arbitration branch and monetary benefits are granted to the employees.
The case is considered closed, but a petition for relief is filed by 186 employees who claim they were wrongfully excluded
from the benefits.
The NLRC entertains the petition and grants the excluded employees the benefits under the CBA.
The company files a motion for reconsideration, but it is denied.
Separate money claims are filed by the employees, which are dismissed by the labor arbiter.
The NLRC issues a resolution directing the company to pay the individual complainants their CBA benefits.
The company files a petition raising issues of grave abuse of discretion and factual findings without basis.
The Supreme Court finds no grave abuse of discretion and upholds the NLRC's decision to grant the excluded employees
the benefits.
The Court also rules that the economic provisions of the existing CBA continue to have legal effect even beyond the
stipulated term.
Employees hired after the term of the CBA are also entitled to the benefits of the agreement.
The Court defers to the NLRC's factual findings, which are supported by substantial evidence.
The company and the union entered into a collective
bargaining agreement for a period of five (5) years,
starting on August 1, 1989, and ending July 31, 1994.

On the third year of the CBA on August 1, 1992, the

Company and the Union met to renegotiate the
provisions of the CBA for the fourth and fifth years. The
parties, however, failed to resolve some of their
differences, as a result of which a deadlock developed.
On November 12, 1992, a formal notice of deadlock
was sent to the Company on the following issues:
wages, vacation leave, sick leave, hospitalization,
optional retirement, 13th month pay and signing
bonus. the Company announced a cost-cutting or
retrenchment program. The union filed a notice of
strike but was able to resolve the same before the
NCMB.
Conciliation failed, the Union staged a strike. The
Company petitioned the Secretary to assume
jurisdiction. The Secretary ruled that the wage
increases for the fourth and fifth years of the CBA
were not to be credited as compliance with future
mandated increases. In addition, the fourth year
wage increase was to be retroactive to August 1992
and was to be implemented until July 31, 1993, while
the fifth year wage increase was to take effect on
August 1, 1993 until the expiration of the CBA. The
company contends that it had been more than six
(6) months since the expiration of the third
anniversary of the CBA and, therefore, the automatic
renewal clause of Art. 253-A of the Labor Code had
no application.
Is this correct?

SC: No. The signing of the CBA is not determinative

of the question whether "the agreement was
entered into within six months from the date of
expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed
in such collective bargaining agreement" within the
contemplation of Art. 253-A. Art. 253-A refers
merely to an "agreement" which, according to
Black's Law Dictionary is "a coming together of
minds; the coming together in accord of two minds
on a given proposition.” even without any written
evidence of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
made by the parties, a valid agreement existed in
this case from the moment the minds of the parties
met on all matters they set out to discuss.
CERTIFICATION
ELECTION
PROCEEDINGS
 Union is any labor organization in the
private sector which exists in whole or in
part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or dealing with employer
concerning terms and conditions of
employment. Exclusive Bargaining Representative (EBR)

Legitimate labor union duly recognized or

certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent [SEBA]

1. Affiliated - a local or an The determination of the EBR is a non-

independently registered union litigious proceeding and free from
affiliated with a federation or a technicalities as long as it enjoys the
national union. majority support in the bargaining unit.

2. Independent - a union operating in

an establishment by itself. It is not
identified with a federation nor a
national union.
 Representation Issue in Organized Representation Issue in Organized
Establishments Establishments
Petitions in Unorganized Establishment

Art. 268 Art. 268

When an election which
Art. 269
In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the
provides for three or more In any establishment where
majority status of the incumbent choices results in no choice there is no certified bargaining
bargaining agent is filed by any receiving a majority of the valid agent, a certification election
legitimate labor organization votes cast, a run-off election shall automatically be
including a national union or shall be conducted between
conducted by the Med-Arbiter
federation which has already issued a the labor unions receiving the
charter certificate to its local chapter two highest number of votes:
upon the filing of a petition by
participating in the certification Provided, That the total number any legitimate labor
election or a local chapter which has organization, including a
of votes for all contending unions
been issued a charter certificate by national union or federation
the national union or federation before
is at least fifty percent (50%) of
the Department of Labor and the number of votes cast. which has already issued a
Employment within the sixty (60)-day charter certificate to its
period before the expiration of the At the expiration of the freedom local/chapter participating in
collective bargaining agreement, the period, the employer shall the certification election or a
Med-Arbiter shall automatically order continue to recognize the local/chapter which has been
an election by secret ballot when the majority status of the incumbent
verified petition is supported by the issued a charter certificate by
bargaining agent where no
written consent of at least twenty-five
petition for certification election
the national union or
percent (25%) of all the employees in
is filed. federation.
the bargaining unit to ascertain the
will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit.
An unorganized establishment is a
firm or company without certified
SEBA, while an organized As to the number of unions in the
establishment is an enterprise electoral exercises, a single or multiple
where there exists a SEBA, unions may be involved.
regardless of whether a CBA has
been concluded or not by such
SEBA with the employer.

Single union election is when there is

only one union in contention who files Freedom period is the last sixty (60) days of
for Petition for Certification Election the 5-year lifetime of the CBA immediately
(PCE), its opponent is the “no union” prior to its expiration.
vote. On the other hand, multiple
unions election is when there are two This is also the time when the majority
(2) or more unions in contention which status of the CBA may be challenged by
results may give rise to other kinds of another union by filing the appropriate
elections, namely, Consent, Run-off and PCE
Re-run Elections.
 Appeal from Certification Election Orders.
When an Employer May File Petition Employer as a bystander

Art. 270 Art. 271 Art. 272

When requested to bargain In all cases, whether the petition Any party to an election may
collectively, an employer may for certification election is filed
appeal the order or results of
petition the Bureau for an election. by an employer or a legitimate
If there is no existing certified labor organization, the employer
the election as determined by
collective bargaining agreement shall not be considered a party the Med- Arbiter directly to the
in the unit, the Bureau shall, after thereto with a concomitant right Secretary of Labor and
hearing, order a certification to oppose a petition for Employment on the ground that
election. certification election. The the rules and regulations or
employer’s participation shall be parts thereof established by the
The Bureau shall conduct a limited to: 1) being notified or Secretary of Labor and
certification election within twenty informed of petitions of such Employment for the conduct of
(20) days in accordance with the nature; and (2) submitting the list the election have been
rules and regulations prescribed of employees during the pre-
violated. Such appeal shall be
by the Secretary of Labor. election conference should the
Med-Arbiter act favorably on the
decided within fifteen (15)
petition. calendar days.
Request for Certification as SEBA

Consent Election Determination

Certification Election
of
Representation
Run-Off Election Status
Re-run Election
 Request for SEBA Certification

[old] Voluntary Recognition

The name and address of Request for
is where in an unorganized the requesting legitimate certification in
labor organization;
establishment with only one unorganized
LLO, the employer may The name and address of
the company where it establishment with
VOLUNTARILY recognize the
representation status of the operates; only one (1) legitimate
union. The bargaining unit sought union. No certification
to be represented; election is required in
[new] There is NO The approximate number this case unless the
VOLUNTARY of employees in the
requesting union fails
RECOGNITION replaced by bargaining unit; and
The statement of the
to complete the
the REQUEST FOR SOLE
AND EXCLUSIVE existence or non-existence requirements for SEBA
BARGAINING AGENT of other labor organization certification.
or CBA.
 Request for certification in
unorganized establishment What happens
with more than one (1) if a certification
legitimate labor organization. to be a SEBA
Request for certification in
occurred under
organized establishment instances?
RD will refer to EO / Med-
Arbiter for the conduct of
a CE
 Election voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties to
determine the issue of majority
representation of all the Consent
workers in the appropriate Election
collective bargaining.
May be done with or without
the intervention of the DOLE
 Certification election is a
process of determining through
secret ballot the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent Certification
(SEBA) of all the employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit
Election
for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
 Certification Election
REQUIREMENTS
a) A statement indicating any of the
following:
That the bargaining unit is
unorganized or that there is no
registered CBA covering the
A PCE is filed at the employees in the bargaining unit;
AFTER the receipt of the
Regional Office which If there exists a duly registered CBA, PCE, the petition will be
that the petition is filed within the raffled to the Med-Arbiter
issued the certificate of sixty-day freedom period of such
petitioning union’s agreement; for preliminary conference
certificate of
If another union had been to determine, among
previously recognized voluntarily or
registration/certificate of certified in a valid certification, others, the bargaining unit
creation of chartered local. consent or run-off election, that the to be represented, the
petition is filed outside the one-year
period from entry of voluntary
contending unions, and the
recognition or conduct of possibility of consent
certification or run-off election and election.
no appeal is pending thereon.
b) In an organized establishment, the
signature of at least twenty-five (25%)
percent of all employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit shall be
attached to the petition at the time of its
filing
 Certification Election
Denial of PCE

a) it was filed before or after

The PCE will be endorsed to the freedom period of a
an election officer for the registered CBA;
conduct of pre-election b) the petitioner union is
conference wherein the not listed in the DOLE The DOLE Regional Office
date, time and place of through the election officer
Registry of legitimate labor
election will be identified, conducts the certification
organization; or
the list of challenged and election.
c) the legal personality of
eligible voters will be made,
the petitioner-union has
as well as the number and
location of polling places. been revoked or cancelled
with finality.
 Certification Election
What are requisites for PCE
in organized
What are requisites for PCE May an employer file a PCE?
establishments:
in unorganized
establishments: Yes, the employer may file a
a) a petition questioning the
majority status of the PCE if it is requested to
incumbent bargaining bargain collectively.
Certification election in
agent is filed before the
unorganized establishments May an employer extend
DOLE within the 60-day
shall “automatically” be voluntary recognition to a
freedom period;
conducted upon the filing of legitimate labor
b) such petition is verified;
a petition for certification organization without filing a
and
election by an independent PCE?
c) the petition is supported
union or a federation in
by the written consent of at
behalf of the chartered local NO.
least twenty-five percent
or the local/chapter itself.
(25%) of all employees in the
bargaining unit.
Certification Election Process
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Republic of the Philippines, represented by DOLE, v. Kawashima Textile, July 23, 2008
Samahang Manggagawa sa St. James School of Quezon
City ("Samahang Manggagawa") filed a petition for
certification election to determine the collective
bargaining representative of the motor pool, construction
and transportation employees of St. James School of
Quezon City. After the CE, St. James filed a certification
election protest challenging the 84 votes. St. James
alleged that it had 179 rank and file employees, none of
whom voted in the certification election. The med-arbiter
nullified the CE. The Med-Arbiter was reversed by DOLE
Samahang Manggagawa seeks to represent the non-
academic personnel or the rank and file employees from
the motor pool, construction and transportation
departments, and not all the rank and file employees of
St. James.
Should the CE be invalidated?

SC: No. All employees who are members of the

appropriate bargaining unit sought to be represented by
the petitioner at the time of the certification or consent
election shall be qualified to vote. A dismissed employee
whose dismissal is being contested in a pending case
shall be allowed to vote in the election.
In case of disagreement over the voters’ list or over the
eligibility of voters, all contested voters shall be allowed
to vote.
The motor pool, construction and transportation
employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified
voters at the time of the certification election. Hence, the
149 qualified voters should be used to determine the
existence of a quorum. Since a majority or 84 out of the
149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed in
the certification election.
DHL Phils. United Rank and File Association v. Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Phils., July 22, 2004

•On November 25, 1997, a certification election was held among the employees of DHL Philippines Corporation.

•The choices were petitioner and "no union."

•On January 19, 1998, petitioner was certified as the sole bargaining agent with 546 votes, while "no union" received 348 votes.

•Respondent Buklod ng Manggagawa ng DHL Philippines Corporation (BUKLOD) filed a petition to nullify the certification
election on December 19, 1997, accusing petitioner of fraud and misrepresentation.

•BUKLOD claimed that petitioner misrepresented itself as an independent union when it was actually affiliated with the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW).

•BUKLOD was issued a Certificate of Registration by DOLE on December 23, 1997, and was formed by members who withdrew
their membership from petitioner.

•Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin nullified the certification election on May 18, 1998, and ordered a new one with petitioner,
respondent, and "no choice" as options.

•DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz overturned Med-Arbiter Falconitin's decision and declared petitioner as the
bargaining representative.

•The Court of Appeals (CA) held that a new certification election should be conducted to determine the employees' choice,
considering the withdrawal of a majority of petitioner's members.

•The CA also found that the certification order issued by the election officer was premature, and the charges of fraud and deceit
should have been treated as protests.

•Petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the CA's decision.

•The issues raised are the validity of the CA decision and resolution, and the validity of the certification election. The Supreme
Court ruled that the CA decision and resolution were valid, and the certification election should be set aside due to the
misrepresentations made by petitioner's officers. The employees were led to believe that petitioner was an independent union
when it was actually affiliated with FFW. The employees formed a new union, BUKLOD, after discovering the misrepresentation.
The misrepresentations interfered with the employees' free choice, and a new certification election should be held to determine
their true preference for representation.
 Bars to Certification Election
The contract bar rule states that
Scenario:
the Bureau of Labor Relations Company X has a valid Collective
(BLR) will not entertain any Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Union
Exceptions: A for 3 years, starting from January 1,
petition for a certification The rule doesn't apply during the 60-day 2023, and ending on December 31, 2025.
election or any action that freedom period before the CBA On February 5, 2024, Union B files a
[Link] allows space for challenging petition with the Bureau of Labor
disrupts the administration of Relations (BLR) requesting a certification
the incumbent union's representation
a duly registered and existing before the agreement automatically election to represent the employees of
Company X.
CBA affecting the parties renews.
Applying the Contract Bar Rule:
Other exceptions include situations
involved. This rule aims to involving: Valid CBA exists: Since a valid CBA
between Company X and Union A is in
promote labor peace and Illegal provisions in the CBA violating
effect,the contract bar rule applies.
labor laws.
industrial stability by allowing Union raiding through unfair labor
No freedom period: The petition falls
within the validity period of the CBA (not
the parties to focus on practices. within the 60-day freedom period before
Dissolution of the employer or certified
implementing the agreed-upon bargaining unit
its expiration).
Bar to the election: Due to the contract
terms of the CBA without bar rule, the BLR will not entertainUnion
constant challenges to the chosen B's petition for a certification election.
Stability maintained: Union A remains
representative. The bar generally the recognized bargaining
lasts for the entire duration of representative until the current CBA
expires on December 31, 2025.
the valid CBA, usually 3 years
 Bars to Certification Election
Company X employees vote in a
certification election on February 15,
Exceptions to the one-year bar rule:
2023, successfully choosing Union A
as their bargaining representative.
The "one-year bar rule" to a •No valid CBA exists: If there's no registered
The election results are finalized and
and valid Collective Bargaining Agreement in
certification election refers become valid on March 10, 2023.
place, the one-year bar doesn't apply, and a
to the restriction on holding petition for a new election can be filed
Based on the one-year bar rule:
Any petition for another certification
another election within one anytime.
election in the same bargaining unit
year from the date of a •Appeal filed: If an appeal is filed against the
of Company X filed before March 10,
results of the previous election, the one-year
validly concluded bar is suspended until the appeal is final and
2024, will be barred. This means
certification, consent, or neither another union nor the
executory.
employer can challenge Union A's
run-off election, or from the •Freedom period: During the freedom
representation within this period.
date of voluntary period (60 days before the end of a CBA or
On March 11, 2024, and onwards,
two years without a CBA), the one-year bar
recognition doesn't apply, and a petition for a new
petitions for a new certification
election can be filed
election can be filed.
again. However, other bars like the
presence of a valid CBA or ongoing
ULP cases might still prevent an
election from being held.
 Bars to Certification Election
Company X has an existing CBA
with Union A, which expires on June
The "deadlock bar rule" in labor relations is not a
standalone rule but rather the application of the
30, 2024.
Freedom Period Bar in specific circumstances Negotiations for a new CBA begin
Deadlock Bar before the expiration.
involving bargaining deadlocks. It comes into play
when an incumbent union exists and By April 15, 2024 (within the 60-day
before the filing of a petition negotiations with the employer reach a deadlock freedom period before the CBA
for certification election, a ends), negotiations reach a
bargaining deadlock to which deadlock.
an incumbent or certified Under the Freedom Period Bar:
No other union or the employer can
bargaining agent is a party had file a petition for certification
been submitted to conciliation election to challenge Union A's
or arbitration or had become representation during the entire
the subject of valid notice or freedom period (60 days before the
strike or lockout. CBA ends).
 National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied

Bargaining Agent & CE

Industries- Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter v. Secretary of Labor,
July 31, 2009

A certification election was conducted on June 16, 2006

among the rank-and-file employees of respondent Holiday Inn
Manila Pavilion Hotel. Having declared that no choice in the
certification election conducted obtained the required
majority, it follows that a run-off election must be held to
determine which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should
represent the rank-and-file employees. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, March 18, 2010

Eagle Ridge has apparently resorted to filing the instant case for
cancellation of the Union’s certificate of registration to bar the
holding of a certification election. This can be gleaned from the
fact that the grounds it raised in its opposition to the petition for
certification election are basically the same grounds it resorted to
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical (SMCC- in the instant case for cancellation of EREU’s certificate of
SUPER) v. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., March 16, registration. This amounts to a clear circumvention of the law
2011

While there is a prohibition against the mingling of

supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor
organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the
effects thereof. Any mingling between supervisory and
rank-and-file employees in its membership cannot affect its
legitimacy for that is not among the grounds for
cancellation of its registration, unless such mingling was
brought about by misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code.
 Heritage Hotel v. Secretary, July 23, 2014

Bargaining Agent & CE The actual functions of an employee, not his job designation,
determined whether the employee occupied a managerial,
supervisory or rank-and-file position. In that regard, mere allegations
sans substance would not be enough, most especially because the
constitutional right of workers to self-organization would be
compromised. Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an T&H Shopfitters v. T&H Shopfitters Workers Union, February 26,
employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; 2014
such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the
purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the An employer has no concern with the certification election except
employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The when the employer itself had to file the petition but after that, an
choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the
employer should only be a bystander. Thus, petitioners had no
employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it
cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion
business persuading and/or assisting its employees in their
to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some
legally protected independent process of selecting their
employees participating in a petition for certification election are exclusive bargaining representative. The fact and peculiar timing
actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal of the field trip sponsored by petitioners for its employees not
personality to block the certification election. The employer's only affiliated with THSGQ Union, although a positive enticement, was
right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. undoubtedly extraneous influence designed to impede
respondents in their quest to be certified. This cannot be
countenanced.
Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v Laguesma, February 2, 2000

The Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall

automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing
of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said
therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the
certification election if the management appeals on the issue of
the validity of the union’s registration
 Ren Transport Corporation v. NLRC (G.R. No. 188020, June 27,
2016)

Bargaining Agent & CE Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Ren Transport (SMART) is a

registered union, which had a five-year collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) with Ren Transport Corp. (Ren Transport) set
to expire on 31 December 2004. The 60-day freedom period of
the CBA passed without a challenge to SMART's majority status as
bargaining agent. SMART thereafter conveyed its willingness to
bargain with Ren Transport, to which it sent bargaining
proposals. Ren Transport, however, failed to reply to the
demand. 2 members of SMART wrote DOLE that a majority of the Hijo Resources Corporation v. Mejares, January 13, 2016
members of SMART had decided to disaffiliate from their mother
federation to form another union, Ren Transport Employees In the exercise of this jurisdiction over labor-management
Association (RTEA). SMART contested the same. In the meantime, relations, the med-arbiter (under the BLR) has the authority,
REN withheld the check-off of union dues and voluntarily original and exclusive, to determine the existence of an ER-EE
recognized RTEA as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of relationship between the parties. The medarbiter’s decision is
the rank-and-file employees of their company. SMART filed a ULP
only appealable to the Secretary of Labor. The decision
against Ren. LA ruled that there was ULP, withholding of dues,
failure to send counter-proposal and voluntary recognition were
dismissing the petition for certification election on the basis of
unjustified and interfered with their right to self-organize. Both nonexistence of ER-EE relationship was issued after the
parties appealed to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed LA’s ruling and employees were dismissed from employment. Because of this,
awarded damages. The CA, though, ruled that SMART, as a the union, without its memberemployees, was stripped of its
corporation, was not entitled to moral damages but affirmed the personality to challenge the Med-Arbiter’s decision in the
rest. certification election case (there were would be no one to
SC: Ren committed ULP because it violated the duty bargain represent).
collectively. No petition was filed during the freedom period.
Ren interfered with the right to self-organization is considered an
unfair labor practice i.e. failure to remit the union dues to
SMART and the voluntary recognition of RTEA were clear
indications of interference with the employees' right to self-
organization
 Certification - Illustration

100 employees, 2 unions Aside from the requirement for

the validity of PCE, the
First Majority from 100 = 51. requisites for the validity of the
51 must at least vote. certification election and the
valid determination of the
Here, 60 voters participated. winning union are also
Second majority of 60 = 31 essential. Under the so-called
A received 40, B received 1 vote, No double majority rule, for there
to be a valid certification
union received 10, the rest are election, majority of the
spoiled ballots bargaining unit must have
voted (first majority) and the
A wins because it got more than winning union must have
majority garnered majority of the valid
votes cast (second majority)
 When at least three (3) or more
unions are involved in the
certification election and not
one of them has garnered the Run-Off Election
majority of the valid votes cast
but the total votes of all the
contending unions is equivalent
to at least 50% of the valid votes.
 There are no objections or
challenges which if sustained
can materially alter the results,
the Election Officer shall motu
proprio conduct a run-off
election within ten (10) days Run-Off Election
from the close of the election
proceedings between the labor
unions receiving the two
highest number of votes.
 Illustration

100 employees, 4 unions

51 must vote

A got 30
B got 25
C got 10
D got 15
No union 5
Rest spoiled ballots
30+25+10+15=80 [more than 51 run-
off is allowed]
 A re-run election is called for
when there is a tie or failure of
election in a certification
election involving two (2) or
more unions. Re-run Election
Re-run election is conducted to
break a tie in a valid certification
election or when there is a need
to cure a failure of election.
 1. 50 voted. Union A got 20,
Union B got 20, No Union got
10
2. 50 voted. Union A got 20,
Union B got 10, No Union got
20 When there is a
3. 100 voted. Union got 30, Union tie for a re-run
B got 30, Union C got 30, No election
union got 10
4. In a run-off, 60 voted. Union A
got 30, Union B got 30
Certification Election is invalidated
or nullified by a multitude of
reasons that negate the true will,
undistorted desire and informed
choice. There is also a failure of
election when less than majority of Re-run Election
the number of eligible voters
participated on the election and
there are no challenged votes that
could materially change the result
of the election.
 Assignment
(for recit)
Part IV – Collective
Bargaining