Case Digest (G.R. No. 77539)
Facts:
The case involves the petitioner, Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP, and the respondents, Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano, as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, the Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO), and Mitsumi Philippines, Inc. The events leading to this case began with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the petitioner and Mitsumi Philippines, which was effective from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986. Article XX of the CBA stipulated that the parties must renegotiate within sixty days before its expiration. On October 22, 1986, a significant majority of the employees petitioned for the renewal of the CBA, but negotiations failed, leading to a declared bargaining deadlock. Subsequently, on November 3, 1986, the petitioner filed a notice of strike, and on December 1, 1986, the petitioner went on strike.
Meanwhile, on November 4, 1986, the ADLO filed a verified petition for a certification election among the regular rank-and...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 77539)
Facts:
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Deadlock
- Petitioner, Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP, was the recognized collective bargaining representative for rank-and-file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc.
- A CBA was in effect from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986, with a provision for renegotiation 60 days before expiration.
- On October 22, 1986, a majority of employees petitioned for renewal, but negotiations led to a deadlock.
- On November 3, 1986, ALU filed a notice of strike, and on December 1, 1986, it went on strike.
Petition for Certification Election
- On November 4, 1986, respondent union, Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO), filed a petition for certification election among Mitsumi employees.
- On December 4, 1986, ALU and Mitsumi reached a new CBA, ratified by 584 out of 742 employees, and registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Med-Arbiter and Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Proceedings
- ALU intervened in ADLO’s petition for certification election.
- The Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election on December 10, 1986, finding ADLO’s petition timely and compliant with the 30% support requirement.
- ALU appealed to the BLR, but its appeal and motion for reconsideration were dismissed.
Supreme Court Proceedings
- ALU filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the BLR’s resolution and order.
- The Court issued a temporary restraining order on March 16, 1987, halting the certification election.
Issue:
- Whether the public respondent erred in ordering a certification election despite a bargaining deadlock, a valid notice of strike, and the subsequent negotiation of a new CBA.
- Whether the new CBA ratified during the pendency of the certification election petition bars the holding of a certification election.
- Whether the petition for certification election was prematurely filed.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It affirmed the BLR’s resolution and order, lifting the temporary restraining order. The Court held that:
- The petition for certification election was timely filed within the 60-day freedom period before the expiration of the existing CBA.
- The new CBA negotiated by ALU during the pendency of the certification election petition does not bar the holding of a certification election.
- The 30% support requirement for the certification election was satisfied, making it mandatory for the BLR to conduct the election.
Ratio:
Timeliness of the Certification Election Petition
- Under Article 258 of the Labor Code, a petition for certification election must be supported by at least 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit. Once verified, the BLR is mandated to conduct the election.
- ADLO’s petition was filed within the 60-day freedom period before the expiration of the existing CBA, making it timely.
Contract Bar Rule
- The contract bar rule prohibits the filing of a certification election petition during the existence of a CBA, except within the 60-day freedom period before its expiration.
- The new CBA negotiated by ALU during the pendency of the certification election petition does not bar the election, as it was entered into after ADLO’s petition was filed.
Interim CBA and Certification Election
- The interim CBA negotiated by ALU is recognized on a temporary basis but does not preclude the certification election.
- If a different union wins the election, it may adopt the interim CBA or negotiate a new one.
Mandatory Nature of Certification Election
- The language of Article 258 is mandatory. Once the 30% support requirement is met, the BLR must conduct the certification election.