Topic: Right to self organization
FACTS:
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
In each ballot, the employee had the
following choices to vote on: (a) TUPAS, (b) TUEU-OLALIA and (c) “NO UNION.” ( which means the employee choose to conformably stay with
established rule and practice)
The final tally of the votes showed
the following results:
TUPAS= 1
TUEU-OLALIA= 95
NO UNION = 1,
SPOILED = 1
CHALLENGED = 141
The challenged votes were those cast by the 141 INK members. They were segregated and excluded from the final count in virtue of an agreement between the competing unions, reached at the pre-election conference, that the INK members should not be allowed to vote “because they are not members of any union and refused to participate in the previous certification elections.”
The INK employees promptly filed a petition to cancel the election before the Med Arbiter alleging that it “was not fair” and the result thereof did “not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of the employees.” TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition contending that the petitioners “do not have legal personality to protest the results of the election,” because “they are not members of either contending unit, but . . . of the INK” which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from joining or forming any labor organization. The Med Arbiter denied the petition.
Public Respondent Trajano as OIC of the Bureau of Labor Relations sustained the denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote of 141 members of the “Iglesia ni Kristo” (INK).
ISSUE/S: W/N employees who
are not part of any union may validly exercise their right to vote in a
certification election?
RULING: YES.
Guaranteed to all employees or workers is the “right to self-organization and
to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes
of collective bargaining.” This is made plain by no less than three provisions
of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
The right of self-organization includes the
right to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of two or
more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in concerted activities
with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through representatives
of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the
protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights and interests.
The right to form or join a labor
organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied
the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to
exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to acquire
membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to
renounce such membership.
The purpose of a certification election is
precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in
the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or not to be represented by a labor
organization, and in the affirmative case, by which particular labor
organization.
If the results of the election should
disclose that the majority of the workers do not wish to be represented by any
union, then their wishes must be respected, and no union may properly be
certified as the exclusive representative of the workers in the bargaining unit
in dealing with the employer regarding wages, hours and other terms and
conditions of employment.
The minority employees — who wish to have a
union represent them in collective bargaining — can do nothing but wait for
another suitable occasion to petition for a certification election and hope
that the results will be different. They may not and should not be permitted,
however, to impose their will on the majority — who do not desire to have a
union certified as the exclusive workers’ benefit in the bargaining unit — upon
the plea that they, the minority workers, are being denied the right of
self-organization and collective bargaining.
The respondents’ argument that the
petitioners are disqualified to vote because they “are not constituted into a
duly organized labor union” — “but
members of the INK which prohibits its followers, on religious grounds, from
joining or forming any labor organization” — and “hence, not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and
exclusive bargaining representative,” is specious.
Neither law, administrative rule nor
jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor
organization may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the
plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all
bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor
organization or not.
Neither does the contention that petitioners
should be denied the right to vote because they “did not participate in
previous certification elections in the company for the reason that their
religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist labor
organizations,” persuade acceptance. No law, administrative rule or precedent
prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the
right in past certification elections.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the
petition for certiorari is GRANTED; the Decision of the then Officer-in-Charge
of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated December 21, 1987 (affirming the Order
of the Med-Arbiter dated July 22, 1988) is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; and the
petitioners are DECLARED to have legally exercised their right to vote, and
their ballots should be canvassed and, if validly and properly made out,
counted and tallied for the choices written therein. Costs against private
respondents.
DOCTRINE: Neither
law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees
affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification
election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to
grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit,
whether they are members of a labor organization or not.
Employees should not be denied the right to vote because they
“did not participate in previous certification elections in the company for the
reason that their religious beliefs do not allow them to form, join or assist
labor organizations”. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes
forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in
past certification elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment