Case Summary (G.R. No. 67485)
Background of the Dispute
In the proceedings leading up to this petition, FUR-TUCP filed a petition for certification election to determine the majority representation among the employees of Calinog Refinery Corporation, claiming that a significant number of employees had disaffiliated from NACUSIP-TUCP and joined FUR-TUCP. Initially, Med-Arbiter Pacifico V. Militante dismissed this petition due to a pending collective bargaining deadlock, which NACUSIP had submitted to compulsory arbitration. This dismissal was later set aside by the Bureau of Labor Relations, which ordered a hearing and reception of evidence on the matter.
Evidence and Proceedings
Following the Bureau's remand, the Med-Arbiter issued an order giving due course to the certification election petition filed by FUR-TUCP. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was finalized between NACUSIP and Calinog Refinery's management on September 10, 1983, ratified by a majority of employees, effectively asserting the union's bargaining rights. Despite this, FUR-TUCP argued for a certification election based on claims of employee disaffiliation from NACUSIP.
Decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations
On November 18, 1983, Director Trajano upheld the Med-Arbiter’s decision, citing that NACUSIP did not command majority support among the employees any longer, and thus a certification election was warranted to ascertain the employees' genuine representative preferences. Trajano also noted that any CBA established should be respected by whichever union prevails in the election.
Grounds for Reconsideration
NACUSIP contested this decision, arguing that it constituted grave abuse of discretion, primarily hinging on the assertion that the agreement established a binding CBA that should prohibit any certification election while a bargaining deadlock was pending. The Solicitor General additionally supported NACUSIP's position, emphasizing that the newly established CBA had a three-year term, further contesting the legitimacy of the election under the existing bargaining deadlock.
Legal Framework
The pertinent legal framework for evaluating this case revolves around Section 3, Book V, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The law stipulates that no petition for a certification election can proceed during an existing bargaining deadlock involving a certified bargaining representative, a rule designed to maintain stability in labor-management
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 67485)
Case Overview
- The case is a petition for certiorari filed by the National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP)-TUCP against the decision rendered by Director Cresenciano B. Trajano of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment.
- The decision, dated November 18, 1983, affirmed the order of Med-Arbiter Demetrio Correa, which allowed a petition for certification election filed by Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR)-TUCP.
- Additional orders related to the case include the March 21, 1984 order denying NACUSIP's motion for reconsideration.
Antecedent Facts
- NACUSIP had a collective bargaining agreement with the Calinog Refinery Corporation.
- The petitioner intervened in a certification election petition filed by the private respondent FUR-TUCP.
- The Acting Med-Arbiter initially dismissed the certification election petition on July 23, 1982, citing a pending bargaining deadlock.
- Following an appeal by FUR-TUCP, the Bureau of Labor Relations set aside the dismissal, leading to an order on May 2, 1983, for a certificat