Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

SMCC VS.

CHARTER CHEMICAL & COATING CORP

FACTS:
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms
(petitioner union) filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of Charter
Chemical and Coating Corporation (respondent company) with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of the DOLE, National
Capital Region.

Respondent company filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the ground that petitioner union is not a legitimate
labor organization because of (1) failure to comply with the documentation requirements set by law, and (2) the
inclusion of supervisory employees within petitioner union.

MED-ARBITER RULING: Sided with the company.


DOLE RULING: Granted the union’s petition for a certification election.
CA RULING: Reversed the DOLE and upheld the Med-Arbiter’s Ruling.

ISSUE: Does the commingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in a union divest it of its personality as a
legitimate labor organization?

SC RULING:
NO. After a labor organization has been registered, it may exercise all the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
organization. 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.

Applying this principle to the case at bar, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a legitimate labor
organization even if some of its members were supervisory employees. It had the right to file the subject petition for
certification election. Besides, the legal personality of the union cannot be collaterally attacked by the company in
the certification election proceedings the latter being – in the eyes of the law – a mere bystander in such proceedings.

The CA found that petitioner union has for its membership both rank-and-file and supervisory employees. However,
petitioner union sought to represent the bargaining unit consisting of rank-and-file employees. Under Article 245 of
the Labor Code,supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a labor organization of rank-and-file
employees. Thus, the appellate court ruled that petitioner union cannot be considered a legitimate labor
organization pursuant to Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
Union (hereinafter Toyota).
Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v CA

Facts: Petitioner CAPASCO, hired private respondent Tamondong as Assistant to the Personnel Manager for its Cainta
Plant on 16 February 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Personnel/Administrative Officer, and
later to that of Personnel Superintendent. Sometime in June 1996, the supervisory personnel of CAPASCO launched a
move to organize a union among their ranks, later known as private respondent CUSE. Private respondent Tamondong
actively involved himself in the formation of the union and was even elected as one of its officers after its creation.
Consequently, petitioner CAPASCO sent a memo dated 3 February 1997, to private respondent Tamondong requiring
him to explain and to discontinue from his union activities, with a warning that a continuance thereof shall adversely
affect his employment in the company. Private respondent Tamondong ignored said warning and made a reply
letter on 5 February 1997, invoking his right as a supervisory employee to join and organize a labor union. In view of
that, on 6 February 1997, petitioner CAPASCO through a memo terminated the employment of private respondent
Tamondong on the ground of loss of trust and confidence, citing his union activities as acts constituting serious
disloyalty to the company.

Private respondent Tamondong challenged his dismissal for being illegal and as an act involving unfair labor practice
by filing a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice before the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch IV.
According to him, there was no just cause for his dismissal and it was anchored solely on his involvement and active
participation in the organization of the union of supervisory personnel in CAPASCO. Though private respondent
Tamondong admitted his active role in the formation of a union composed of supervisory personnel in the company, he
claimed that such was not a valid ground to terminate his employment because it was a legitimate exercise of his
constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.

On 7 August 1998, Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent
Tamondong, and rendered a decision finding [petitioner CAPASCO] guilty of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
Hence, this present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Issue: WON Tamondong’s position as Personnel Superintendent was considered as a managerial employee and thus be
prohibited from joining a union and be elected as one of its officers.

The petition must fail.

[Private respondent] Tamondong 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. [Petitioner] CAPASCO miserably failed to establish that [private respondent] Tamondong was
authorized to act in the interest of the company using his independent judgment. x x x. Withal, [private respondent]
Tamondong may have been exercising certain important powers, such as control and supervision over erring
rank-and-file employees, however, x x x he does not possess the power to hire, transfer, terminate, or discipline
erring employees of the company. At the most, the record merely showed that [private respondent] Tamondong
informed and warned rank-and-file employees with respect to their violations of CAPASCO’s rules and regulations. x x
x. [Also, the functions performed by private respondent such as] issuance of warning to employees with irregular
attendance and unauthorized leave of absences and requiring employees to explain regarding charges of
abandonment of work, are normally performed by a mere supervisor, and not by a manager.

Accordingly, Article 212(m) of the Labor Code, as amended, differentiates supervisory employees from managerial
employees, to wit: supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the 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; whereas, managerial employees are those who are vested with powers or prerogatives to
lay down and execute management policies and/or hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. Thus, from the foregoing provision of the Labor Code, it can be clearly inferred that private
respondent Tamondong was just a supervisory employee.

With regard to the allegation that private respondent Tamondong was not only a managerial employee but also a
confidential employee, petitioners failed to adduced evidence which will prove that, indeed, private respondent was
also a confidential employee. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT vs. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION|||


FACTS
Respondent Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association (AFA) filed a petition for certification
election seeking to represent a bargaining unit in AIM consisting of forty (40) faculty members. Petitioner Asian
Institute of Management (AIM) opposed the petition, claiming that respondent's members are neither
rank-and-file nor supervisory, but rather, managerial employees.
Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration — docketed as
DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-0707-001-LRD — on the grounds of misrepresentation in registration and that respondent
is composed of managerial employees who are prohibited from organizing as a union.
Med-Arbiter in DOLE denied the petition for certification election on the ground that AIM's faculty members are
managerial employees.
On appeal, the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) reversed the decision.
Petition for Certiorari before the CA, the petition is based on the arguments that 1) the bargaining unit within
AIM sought to be represented is composed of managerial employees who are not eligible to join, assist, or form
any labor organization, and 2) respondent is not a legitimate labor organization that may conduct a certification
election.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: AIM insists that the members of its tenure-track faculty are managerial
employees, and therefore, ineligible to join, assist or form a labor organization. It ascribes gave abuse of
discretion on SOLE for its rash conclusion that the members of said tenure-track faculty are not managerial
employees solely because the faculty's actions are still subject to evaluation, review or final approval by the
board of trustees ("BOT").AIM argues that the BOT does not manage the day-to-day affairs, nor the making
and implementing of policies of the Institute, as such functions are vested with the tenure-track faculty.

Issue. Did CA commit an error in validating the respondent’s certificate of registration on the ground that ots
members are all managerial employees who are disqualified from joining, assisting or forming a labor
orgaization?

HELD.
Managerial employees are ineligible to join labor organizations, but the issue whether they are in fact
managerial employees is still pending in a separate case.
On the basis of the ruling in the above-cited case, it can be said that petitioner was correct in filing a
petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration. Petitioner's sole ground for seeking
cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration — that its members are managerial employees and for this
reason, its registration is thus a patent nullity for being an absolute violation of Article 245 of the Labor
Code which declares that managerial employees are ineligible to join any labor organization — is, in a sense, an
accusation that respondent is guilty of misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not
managerial employees.
However, the issue of whether respondent's members are managerial employees is still pending resolution
by way of petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 197089, which is the culmination of all proceedings in DOLE
Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007 — where the issue relative to the nature of respondent's membership was first raised
by petitioner itself and is there fiercely contested. The resolution of this issue cannot be pre-empted; until it is
determined with finality in G.R. No. 197089, the petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of
registration on the grounds alleged by petitioner cannot be resolved. As a matter of courtesy and in order to avoid
conflicting decisions, We must await the resolution of the petition in G.R. No. 197089.
x x x If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend
on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same
parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was
in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. x x x Identity of cause of action is not required, but
merely identity of issues.
|||

GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (GENERAL
SANTOS CITY)
FACTS: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. (CCBPI) experienced a significant decline in profitability due to the Asian
economic crisis, decrease in sales, and tougher competition. To curb the negative effects on the company, it
implemented three (3) waves of an Early Retirement Program.
 Meanwhile, there was an inter-office memorandum sent to all of CCBPIs Plant Human Resources
Managers/Personnel Officers, including those of the CCBPI General Santos Plant (CCBPI Gen San) mandating
them to put on hold all requests for hiring to fill in vacancies in both regular and temporary positions in the
Head Office and in the Plants.
 Because several employees availed of the early retirement program, vacancies were created in some
departments, including the production department of CCBPI Gen San, where members of petitioner Union
worked. This prompted petitioner to negotiate with the Labor Management Committee for filling up the
vacancies with permanent employees. No resolution was reached on the matter.
 Faced with the freeze hiring directive, CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP Services Corporation
(JLBP), a company in the business of providing labor and manpower services, including janitorial services,
messengers, and office workers to various private and government offices.
NCMB: Petitioner filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), a Notice of Strike on the ground of
alleged unfair labor practice committed by CCBPI Gen San for contracting-out services regularly performed by union
members (union busting). After conciliation and mediation proceedings before the NCMB, the parties failed to come to
an amicable settlement.
 CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. The Secretary of Labor issued an Order enjoining the threatened strike and certifying the
dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
NLRC: The NLRC ruled that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice for contracting out jobs to JLBP. The NLRC
anchored its ruling on the validity of the Going-to-the-Market (GTM) system implemented by the company, which
called for restructuring its selling and distribution system, leading to the closure of certain sales offices and the
elimination of conventional sales routes.
 The NLRC held that petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that the system was meant to curtail the
right to self-organization of petitioner’s members. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
NLRC denied in a Resolution.
CA: The CA issued the assailed Decision upholding the NLRC’s finding that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor
practice. The CA based its decision on the validity of CCBPIs contracting out of jobs in its production department. It
held that the contract between CCBPI and JLBP did not amount to labor-only contracting. It found that JLBP was an
independent contractor and that the decision to contract out jobs was a valid exercise of management prerogative to
meet exigent circumstances. On the other hand, petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove that contracting out of
jobs by the company resulted in the dismissal of petitioners members, prevented them from exercising their right to
self-organization, led to the Unions demise or that their group was singled out by the company. Consequently, the CA
declared that CCBPI was not guilty of unfair labor practice.

ISSUE: Whether or not CCBPI’s contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted to unfair labor practice.
HELD: NO. It is true that the NLRC erroneously concluded that the contracting- out of jobs in CCBPI Gen San was due
to the GTM system, which actually affected CCBPIs sales and marketing departments, and had nothing to do with
petitioners complaint. However, this does not diminish the NLRCs finding that JLBP was a legitimate, independent
contractor and that CCBPI Gen San engaged the services of JLBP to meet business exigencies created by the
freeze-hiring directive of the CCBPI Head Office.
 On the other hand, the CA squarely addressed the issue of job contracting in its assailed Decision and
Resolution. The CA itself examined the facts and evidence of the parties and found that, based on the
evidence, CCBPI did not engage in labor-only contracting and, therefore, was not guilty of unfair labor
practice.
 The NLRC found and the same was sustained by the CA that the company’s action to contract-out the services
and functions performed by Union members did not constitute unfair labor practice as this was not directed at
the member’s right to self-organization.
 Article 248 of the Labor Code provides:
ART. 248. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practices:
xxx
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
xxx
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the
workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair,
are not unfair labor practices.
Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. It was the
Union that had the burden of adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor practice, which
burden it failed to discharge.

UST FACULTY UNION v. UST

The Facts
UST Faculty Union [USTFU] demanded from [UST], through its Rector, Fr. Arceo, remittance of the total amount
of 65M plus legal interes, representing deficiency in its contribution to the medical and hospitalization fund ("fund") of
[UST's] faculty members.
Fr. Arceo informed [USTFU] that the benefits were not meant to be given annually but rather as a one-time
allocation or contribution to the fund.

USTFU sent [UST] another demand letter dated reiterating its position that [UST] is obliged to remit to the fund,
its contributions not only for the years 1996-1997 but also for the subsequent years, but to no avail. USTFU] filed
against [UST], a complaint for unfair labor practice, as well as for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's
fees before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.

UST sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It contended that the case falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators because it involves the
interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the CBA; and the conflict between the herein parties must be
resolved as grievance under the CBA and not as unfair labor practice.

UST’s motion to dismiss was denied. UST appealed the Order to the NLRC.

NLRC dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the LA for further proceedings.

Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of USTFU.

The LA classified USTFU's complaint as one for "unfair labor practice, claims for sliding in of funds to
hospitalization and medical benefits under the CBA, damages and attorney's fee with prayer for slide-in and
restoration of medical benefits under the CBA."

NLRC granted USTFU's appeal and denied UST's appeal for lack of merit. They noted that the subsequent CBAs
between UST and USTFU show that the parties intended that the amount appropriated each year to augment the fund
shall be carried over to the succeeding years and is chargeable to the tuition fee increment.

CA stated that since USTFU's ultimate objective is to clarify the relevant items in the CBA, then USTFU's complaint
should have been filed with the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no jurisdiction over the complaint for unfair labor
practice (ULP) filed by USTFU.

HELD: NO. Jurisdiction over the Present Case

- Reading the pertinent portions of the 1996-2001 CBA along with those of theLabor Code,we see that USTand
USTFU's misunderstanding arose solely from their differing interpretations of the CBA's provisions on economic
benefits, specifically those concerning the fund.
- Therefore, it was clearly error for the LA to assume jurisdiction over the present case. The case should have
been resolved through the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
- Indeed, the present case falls under Section 1's definition of grievance: "[a]ny misunderstanding concerning
policies and practices directly affecting faculty members covered by this [collective bargaining] agreement or
their working conditions in the UNIVERSITY or any dispute arising as to the meaning, application or violation of
any provisions of this Agreement or any complaint that a covered faculty member may have against the
UNIVERSITY."

Philippine Skylanders Inc. v. NLRC

FACTS: In November 1993, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association (PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted among the
rank-and-file employees of Philippine Skylanders Inc (PSI). PSEA’s rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees
Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) protested the result of the election before the DOLE Secretary.

Pending settlement of the election controversy, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation, attached therewith was a
copy of the resolution adopted and signed by the officers and members (111 signatories out of 120
member-employees) of PSEA authorizing their local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation.

PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers (NCW), changed its name to Philippine
Skylanders Employees Association - National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity within the
organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers in
the newly-forged PSEA-NCW.

Thereafter, PSEA-NCW entered into a CBA with PSI which was immediately registered with DOLE.

Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA's shift of allegiance, PAFLU requested a copy of PSI's audited financial
statement in order to start negotiating for a CBA. The request was denied by PSI due to the disaffiliation of PSEA from
PAFLU and its subsequent affiliation with NCW.

PAFLU filed before the Labor Arbiter a ULP complaint against PSI and its officers for the latter’s alleged violation of its
duty to bargain collectively and for its interference with its employees’ union activities. PAFLU amended its complaint
to implead the elected officers of PSEA-PAFLU averring that said officers were equally guilty of ULP for allowing
themselves to be manipulated by PSI.

LABOR ARBITER: declared as INVALID PSEA’s disaffiliation and held PSI and officers of PSEA-PAFLU guilty of ULP. The
Decision explained that despite PSEA-PAFLU's status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file
employees, PSI knowingly sanctioned and confederated with its personnel manager in actively assisting a rival union.

PSI, PSEA and its respective officers then appealed to NLRC.

NLRC: upheld LA’s Decision and conjectured that since an election protest questioning PSEA-PAFLU's certification as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent was pending resolution before the Secretary of Labor, PSEA could not validly
separate from PAFLU, join another national federation and subsequently enter into a collective bargaining agreement
with its employer-company.

ISSUE: WON PSEA, which is an independent and separate local union, may validly disaffiliate from PAFLU pending the
settlement of an election protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file
employees

RULING: YES. Local unions have the right to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate and
voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they
are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective
action, the common bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their interests.

Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own interests subject to the restraints
imposed by the constitution and by-laws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the affiliation upon the
terms laid down in the agreement which brought such affiliation into existence.

In the present case, there is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly
forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such,
the pendency of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar
to a valid disaffiliation. Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 111 signatories out of the 120 members of the local
union, or an equivalent of 92.5% of the total union membership supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact
disauthorized PAFLU from instituting any complaint in their behalf. Surely, this is not a case where one (1) or two (2)
members of the local union decided to disaffiliate from the mother federation, but it is a case where almost all local
union members decided to disaffiliate.

It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had
validly severed itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently
affiliating with NCW and entering into a collective bargaining agreement in behalf of its members.

NOTE: SC also noted that the case at bar is an ISSUE OF DISAFFILIATION which is an INTER-UNION CONFLICT which is
properly within the jurisdiction of BLR, and not with LA. In order not to further delay the resolution of the case, SC
decided not to remand the case to BLR but to settle the controversy once and for all.

S-ar putea să vă placă și