Topic:
Appropriate Bargaining Unit: Law and Definition
FACTS:
In
the instant case, private respondent Associated Labor Union (ALU)-TUCP, seeks
direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
rank-and-file workers of the livestock and agro division of petitioner BELYCA
Corporation engaged in piggery, poultry raising and the planting of
agricultural crops such as corn, coffee and various vegetables. Private
respondents in their petition allege the following:
(1)
that there is no existing collective bargaining agreement between the
respondent employer, petitioner herein, and any other existing legitimate labor
unions;
(2)
that there had neither been a certification election conducted in the proposed
bargaining unit within the last twelve (12) months prior to the filing of the
petition nor a contending union requesting for certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative in the proposed bargaining unit;
(3)
that more than a majority of respondent employer's rank-and-file
employees/workers in the
proposed bargaining unit or one hundred thirtyeight (138) as of the date of the filing of the petition, have signedmembership
with the ALU-TUCP and have expressed their written consent and authorization to
the filing of the petition; and
(4)
that in response to petitioner union's two letters to the proprietor/General
Manager of respondent employer, dated April 21, 1986 and May 8, 1986, requesting
for direct recognition as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of the rank-and-file workers, respondent employer has locked
out 119 of its rank-and-file employees in the said bargaining unit and had
dismissed earlier the local union president, vice-president and three other
active members of the local unions for which an unfair labor practice case was
filed by petitioner union against respondent employer.
Belyca,
on the other hand, alleged in its position paper the following:
(1)
that due to the nature of its business, very few of its employees are
permanent, the overwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and
regular employees;
(2)
that of the total 138 rank-and-file employees who authorized, signed and
supported the filing of the petition: (a)
14 were no longer working as of June 3, 1986; (b)
4 resigned after June, 1986; (c)
6 withdrew their membership from petitioner union; (d)
5 were retrenched on June 23, 1986; (e)
12 were dismissed due to malicious insubordination and destruction of property
and; (f)
100 simply abandoned their work or stopped working;
(3)
that the 128 incumbent employees or workers of the livestock section were
merely transferred from the agricultural section as replacement for those who
have either been dismissed, retrenched or resigned; and
(4)
that the statutory requirement for holding a certification election has not
been complied with by the union. The petitioner contends that the bargaining
unit must include all the workers in its integrated business concerns ranging
from piggery, poultry, to supermarts and cinemas so as not to split an
otherwise single bargaining unit into fragmented bargaining units.
ISSUE: WON the proposed bargaining unit
by Belyca is an appropriate bargaining unit.
HELD: No.
According
to Rothenberg, a proper bargaining unit maybe said to be a group of employees
of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with
equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights
and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the
law.
This
Court has already taken cognizance of the crucial issue of determining the
proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit. Among the factors
considered in Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Co. Inc. (103
Phil 1103[1958]) are: "(1) will of employees (Glove Doctrine); (2)
affinity and unity of employee's interest, such as substantial similarity of work
and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions; (3) prior
collective bargaining history; and (4) employment status, such as
temporary, seasonal and probationary employees".
Under
the circumstances of that case, the Court stressed the importance of the fourth
factor and sustained the trial court's conclusion that two separate bargaining
units should be formed in dealing with respondent company, one consisting of
regular and permanent employees and another consisting of casual laborers or
stevedores. Otherwise stated, temporary employees should be treated separately
from permanent employees. But more importantly, this Court laid down the test
of proper grouping, which is community and mutuality of interest.
It
is beyond question that the employees of the livestock and agro division of
petitioner corporation perform work
entirely different from those performed by employees in the supermarts and
cinema. Among others, the noted difference
are: their working conditions, hours of work, rates of pay, including
the categories of their positions and employment status. To lump all the
employees of petitioner in its integrated business concerns cannot result in an
efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituents enjoying a community or
mutuality of interest
DISPOSITIVE: Calleja won. Petition
Dismissed.
DOCTRINE:
Factors
to consider to determine an appropriate bargaining unit:
(1)
will of employees (Glove Doctrine);
(2)
affinity and unity of employee's interest, such as substantial similarity of work
and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions;
(3)
prior collective bargaining history; and
(4)
employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary
employees".
No comments:
Post a Comment