GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP vs. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS G.R. No. 74262

TOPIC: Determination of Appropriate Bargaining Unit; Effect of Prior Agreement

FACTS:

Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber sandals and oilier rubber products. In 1985, the Samahang Manggagawa sa General Rubber Corporation — ANGLO was formed by the daily paid - rank and file employees as their union for collective bargaining, after the expiration on October 15, 1985 of the collective bargaining agreement previously executed by petitioner with General Rubber Workers Union.

On July 17, 1985, the monthly — paid employees of the petitioner-corporation, after forming their own collective bargaining unit, the National Association of Trade Unions of Monthly Paid Employees-NATU, filed a petition for direct certification with the Bureau of Labor Relations which petition was opposed by herein petitioner.

the Med-Arbiter issued an Order for the holding of a certification election after finding that a certification election is in order in this case and observing that it is the fairest remedy to determine whether employees of petitioner desire to have a union or not. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations denied both the appeal and motion for reconsideration interposed by petitioner and affirmed the ruling of the Med-Arbiter. Hence, the present petition, imputing serious error's of law and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations in issuing the assailed order which sanctioned the creation of two (2) bargaining units within petitioner-corporation.

ISSUE: WON BLR is correct in upholding two bargaining units in petitioner corporation

RULING: Yes.

Although it is unusual to deal with 2 bargaining units, there is no one to blame except petitioner itself for creating the situation it is in. From the beginning of the existence in 1963 of a bargaining limit for the employees up to the present, petitioner had sought to indiscriminately suppress the members of the private respondent’s right to self-organization provided for by law. Petitioner, in justification of its action, maintained that the exclusion of the members of the private respondent from the bargaining union of the rank-and-file or from forming their own union was agreed upon by petitioner corporation with the previous bargaining representatives namely: the General "Rubber Workers Union PTGWO the General Workers Union — NAFLU and the General Rubber Workers Union (independent). Such posture has no leg to stand on. It has not been shown that private respondent was privy to this agreement. And even if it were so, it can never bind subsequent federations and unions particularly private respondent-union because it is a curtailment of the right to self-organization guaranteed by the labor laws.

However, to prevent any difficulty. and to avoid confusion to all concerned and, more importantly, to fulfill the policy of the New Labor Code as well as to be consistent with Our ruling in the Bulletin case, the monthly-paid rank-and-file employees should be allowed to join the union of the daily-paid-rank-and-file employees of petitioner so that they can also avail of the CBA benefits or to form their own rank-and-file union, without prejudice to the certification election that has been ordered.