Case Summary (G.R. No. 77539)
Applicable Law
The decision is founded on the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant articles of the Labor Code, including Article 258, which sets forth the requirements for conducting certification elections.
Background Facts
The petitioner, ALU-TUCP, was recognized as the collective bargaining representative for all rank and file employees at Mitsumi Philippines, Inc., with an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986. As the CBA approached expiration, negotiations for renewal commenced but ultimately ended in a deadlock, resulting in the petitioner filing a notice of strike on November 3, 1986, and subsequently going on strike on December 1, 1986. Meanwhile, on November 4, 1986, another union, ADLO, filed a petition for a certification election, seeking to contest the petitioner’s representation claim.
Certification Election and Mediation Efforts
On December 4, 1986, negotiations led to the execution of a new CBA between the petitioner and Mitsumi, which was ratified by the employees and filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Despite the new agreement, the mediation process for the certification election initiated by ADLO progressed, leading to a resolution being issued by the Med-Arbiter to conduct a certification election. This resolution was appealed by the petitioner but dismissed for lack of merit on January 30, 1987, leading the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration which was also denied.
Legal Issues Presented
The petitioner raised several issues concerning the dismissal of their appeal and the conduct of the certification election. Firstly, they argued that the alleged bargaining deadlock and the existing CBA barred the election. Secondly, they contended that the election was premature due to the CBA ratification. Lastly, they claimed that the certification election should have been dismissed as the CBA rendered any petition for election moot.
Court’s Rationale
The court found that the public respondent did not err in ordering the certification election. The resolution maintained that the petition was seasonably filed and met the statutory requirements, with evidence showing that it was supported by more than 30% of the employees. The court noted that the existence of a CBA does not preclude the right to file for a certification election during the designated freedom period.
Determinations on Certification Elections
The court emphasized that, per Article 258 of the Labor Code, if a petition for certification election has been judi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 77539)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by the Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP against Cresenciano B. Trajano, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and other respondents.
- This petition seeks to review a resolution dated January 30, 1987, which ordered a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc.
- The petitioner is the recognized collective bargaining representative of all rank-and-file employees of the company, with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986.
Facts of the Case
- The CBA stipulated that the agreement would last for three years, with a renegotiation to occur within sixty days before its expiration.
- On October 22, 1986, a majority of the employees petitioned for the renewal of the CBA, but negotiations failed, leading to a declared bargaining deadlock.
- A notice of strike was filed by the petitioner on November 3, 1986, and an actual strike commenced on December 1, 1986.
- Concurrently, on November 4, 1986, the rival union, ADLO, filed for a certification election.
- The parties ev