Case Digest (G.R. No. 82260)
Facts:
Associated Labor Unions v. Hon. Pura Ferrer‑Calleja, Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor and Employment and National Federation of Labor, G.R. No. 82260, July 19, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Soriano Fruits Corporation that the records indicate was to expire at the end of August 1987; on June 22, 1987 ALU and management signed a new CBA to take effect on September 1, 1987 and run until August 31, 1990, which the bargaining unit ratified. On August 10, 1987 the National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for a certification election under Executive Order 111 questioning the majority status of ALU.
The Med‑Arbiter scheduled hearings (August 21 and rescheduled September 8, 1987) but the NFL failed to appear at both despite notice; ALU filed position papers and submitted petitions signed by some 224 employees reaffirming ALU's majority. On October 2, 1987 the Med‑Arbiter (Conrado Macasa, Sr.) dismissed NFL’s petition for failure to prosecute. The Bureau of Labor Relations Director, Hon. Pura Ferrer‑Calleja, on December 22, 1987 reversed the Med‑Arbiter and ordered a certification election, directing a pre‑election conference to determine eligible voters and listing NFL and ALU as the choices.
ALU filed for reconsideration which was denied, then petitioned this Court for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari seeking reversal of the Director’s decision, alleging (1) misapplication of Article 257 as amended by Executive Order 111, (2) erroneous reliance on an alleged support of twenty percent (20%) of employees, and (3) that the ratified CBA rendered the election moot under the contract‑bar rule. A temporary rest...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering a certification election?
- Does Article 257 (the 20% written‑consent rule) apply to this case and was the Director required to verify written support of twenty percent?
- Did the ratification of the new collective bargaining agreement prior to its effective date bar the certification election u...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)