ALEXANDER REYES, ALBERTO M.

NERA, EDGARDO M. GECA, and 138

others, petitioners,
vs.
CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO FACTS

-The officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained
the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the
“Iglesia ni Kristo” (INK), all employed in the same company, at a certification election at which
two (2) labor organizations were contesting the right to be the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.

-The certification election was authorized to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Relations
among the employees of Tri-Union Industries Corporation on October 20, 1987. The competing
unions were the Tri-Union Employees Union-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries
and Agriculture (TUEU-OLALIA), and Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services
(TUPAS). Of the 348 workers initially deemed to be qualified voters, only

240 actually took part in the election, conducted under the supervision of the Bureau of Labor
Relations. Among the 240 employees who cast their votes were 141 members of the INK. The
ballots provided for three (3) choices. They provided for votes to be cast, of course, for either of
the two (2) contending labor organizations, (a) TUPAS and (b) TUEU-OLALIA; and,
conformably with established rule and practice, 1 for (c) a third choice: “NO UNION.”

The final tally of the votes showed the following results:

TUPAS 1

TUEU-OLALIA 95

NO UNION 1

SPOILED 1

CHALLENGED 141
ISSUE/S

1.

WON the members of the INC should not be allowed to vote “because they refused to participate
in the previous certification elections.”

2.

WON the NLRC was correct in saying that “if the workers who are members of the Iglesia ni
Kristo in the exercise of their religious belief opted not to join any labor organization as a
consequence of which they themselves can not have a bargainingART. 242. Rights of legitimate
labor organizations. -A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:

(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining;

(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate

bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;

(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request, with its annual audited financial
statements, including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of receipt of the request, after the union has been duly recognized
by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing
collective bargaining agreement, or during the collective bargaining negotiation;

(d) To own property, real or personal, for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its
members;

(e) To sue and be sued in its registered name; and

(f) To undertake all other activities designed to benefit the organization and its members,
including cooperative, housing, welfare and other projects not contrary to law. Notwithstanding
any provision of a general or special law to the contrary, the income and the properties of
legitimate labor organizations, including grants, endowments, gifts, donations and contributions
they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations, local or foreign, which are actually,
directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes, shall be free from taxes, duties and other
assessments. The exemptions provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly
repealing this provision. (As amended by Section 17, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs DOLE

GR 94045

Facts:

On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
CURE, a labor union representing its rank-and-file employees, providing for a term of
three years retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On
December 28, 1989, CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted
for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

On January 18, 1990, CENECO denied CURE’s request on the ground that, under
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are
members of an electric cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.

Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE members, in a
general assembly held on December 9, 1989, approved Resolution No. 35 whereby it
was agreed that ‘tall union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union
members’ membership from Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order to
avail (of) the full benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement
entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the supposed benefits that our
union may avail of under the renewed CBA.

However, the withdrawal from membership was denied by CENECO on February 27,
1990 under Resolution No. 90.

Issue: WON the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the
cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a
collective bargaining agreement proposed by the latter.

Held:
The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their
withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the
resignation of the member- employees is an expression of their preference for union
membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy of the
State to afford fall protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective
bargaining mandates that the employees’ right to form and join unions for purposes
of collective bargaining be accorded the highest consideration.

Thus, member employees of a cooperative may withdraw as members of the

cooperative in order to join labor union. Membership in a cooperative is voluntary;
inherent in it is the right not to join.

NOTES: (San Jose Electric Service Cooperative vs. Ministry of Labor)

1. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary business

concern being run either, by persons, partnerships or corporations. Its owners
and/or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others
are its employees.

2. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner

thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot
bargain with himself or his co-owners. Employees of cooperatives who are
themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join labor
organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves co-owners
of the cooperative.

3. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not

members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the
rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as
are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.

NATU v Republic
G. R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner NATU filed a petition for certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining
agent of its supervisory employees. The bank (Private respondent) moved to dismiss the
petition alleging that the supervisory employees are actually managerial employees hence
prohibited from joining unions. The Med Arbiter granted the petition but the decision was
modified by the Sec. of Labor on the ground that the ff employees are deemed as managerial
and/or confidential employees and are therefore ineligible to join or form labor unions (Dept.
Managers, Asst. Managers, branch Cashiers and Controllers).

ISSUE : W/N the Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers/OICs,

Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank are managerial and/or confidential employees
hence ineligible to join or assist the union of petitioner.

RULING:
The subject employees are supervisory and not managerial. As provided under 212 of the
Philippine Labor Code, a Managerial employee is;

a) One vested with power to lay down and execute management policies, or to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees,
and

b) One vested with both the power or prerogative.

Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers, Department Managers do not possess the
power to lay down policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. They occupy supervisory positions, charged with the duty among others
to "recommend proposals to improve and streamline operations.

On one hand, a confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or
with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property.

Therefore only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent bank who
are deemed as confidential employees are ineligible to join or assist petitioner NATU-Republic
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join, assist or form any other labor organization

ISAE v Quisimbing G.R. No. 128845. June 1, 2000

J. Kapunan

Facts:
The ISM, under Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution established
primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents.

The local-hires union of the ISM were crying foul over the disparity in wages that they got
compared to that of their foreign teaching counterparts.

These questions are asked to qualify a teacher into a local or foreign hire.

a.....What is one's domicile?

b.....Where is one's home economy?

c.....To which country does one owe economic allegiance?

d.....Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School
responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines?

Should any answer point to Philippines, the person is a local hire. The School grants foreign-
hires certain benefits to the foreign hires such as housing, transportation, and 25% more pay
than locals under the theory of (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. The first was
grounded on leaving his home country, the second was on the lack of tenure when he returns
home.

The negotiations between the school and the union caused a deadlock between the parties.

The DOLE resolved in favor of the school, while Dole Secretary Quisimbing denied the union’s
mfr.

He said, “The Union cannot also invoke the equal protection clause to justify its claim of parity. It
is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of equal protection of the laws
is not violated by legislation or private covenants based on reasonable classification. A
classification is reasonable if it is based on substantial distinctions and apply to all members of
the same class. Verily, there is a substantial distinction between foreign hires and local hires,
the former enjoying only a limited tenure, having no amenities of their own in the Philippines and
have to be given a good compensation package in order to attract them to join the teaching
faculty of the School.”

The union appealed to the Supreme Court.

The petitioner called the hiring system discriminatory and racist.

The school alleged that some local hires were in fact of foreign origin. They were paid local
salaries.

Issue:

Whether or not the hiring system is violative of the equal protection clause
Held: Yes, Petition granted

Ratio:

Public policy abhors discrimination. The Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts
Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all people to human dignity…”

The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith."

International law prohibits discrimination, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The latter promises
“Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind.”

In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of
capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible.

The Constitution also directs the State to promote "equality of employment opportunities for all."
Similarly, the Labor Code provides that the State shall "ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer
to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.

In this jurisdiction, there is the term “equal pay for equal work”, pertaining to persons being paid
with equal salaries and have similar skills and similar conditions. There was no evidence here
that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires.

The State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital.
These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor
contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good.[

For the same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot
serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. The dislocation factor and limited tenure
affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which
are not enjoyed by local-hires, such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home
leave travel allowances.

In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the
distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There
is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires.

Obiter:
However, foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires. It does not
appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires
for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows
that these groups were always treated separately. The housing and other benefits accorded
foreign hires were not given to local hires, thereby such admixture will nbot assure any group
the power to exercise bargaining rights.

The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the
employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees' interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions (Substantial
Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment
status.