SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA CHARTER CHEMICAL SOLIDARITY UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS VS. CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION G.R. No. 169717

Topic: Effect of Including Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit

FACTS:

1.     Petitioner Union filed a petition for certification election among the regular rank-and-file employees of respondent Company with the Mediation Arbitration Unit of DOLE-NCR

2.     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

3.     Med-Arbiter Falconitin: dismissed petition for certification election

-       Petitioner union is not a legitimate labor organization because the Charter Certificate, “Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at Authorization,” and “Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika sa Saligang Batas” were not executed under oath and certified by the union secretary and attested to by the union president; thus, fatally defective

-       the list of membership of petitioner union consisted of 12 batchman, mill operator and leadman who performed supervisory functions thus prohibited from joining union to represent rank-and-file employees of company

-       not being a legitimate labor organization, petitioner union has no right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining

4.     DOLE: in favor of respondent company dismissing petitioner union’s appeal because it is filed out of time

5.     On MR, DOLE reversed its earlier ruling: no certification election was previously conducted in favor of company; however, the prior certification was denied by Med-Arbiter and, on appeal, was dismissed by DOLE for being filed out of time

6.     CA:

-       petitioner union failed to company with the documentation requirements under the Labor Code;

-       that union consisted both rank-and-file and supervisory employees;

-       the issues as to the legitimacy of petitioner union may be attacked collaterally in a petition for certification election and the infirmity in the membership of petitioner union cannot be remedied through the exclusion-inclusion proceedings in a pre-election conference

-       considering that the union is not a legitimate labor organization, it has no legal right to file a petition for certification election

ISSUE: Whether or not the mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in petitioner union nullifies its legal personality as a legitimate labor organization

RULING:

NO.

R.A. No. 6715 omitted specifying the exact effect of any violation of the prohibition (on the co-mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees) would bring about on the legitimacy of a labor organization.

It should be emphasized that the petitions for certification election involved in Toyota and Dunlop were filed on November 26, 1992 and September 15, 1995, respectively; hence, the 1989 Rules was applied in both cases.

But then, on June 21, 1997, the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules was further amended by Department Order No. 9, series of 1997 (1997 Amended Omnibus Rules). Specifically, the requirement under Sec. 2(c) of the 1989 Amended Omnibus Rules – that the petition for certification election indicate that the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees has not been mingled with supervisory employees – was removed. Instead, what the 1997 Amended Omnibus Rules requires is a plain description of the bargaining unit

The Court abandoned the view in Toyota and Dunlop and reverted to its pronouncement in Lopez that while there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus, the Court held that 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.

DISPOSITIVE: Petitioner Union won.

DOCTRINE:

While there is a prohibition against the mingling of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in one labor organization, the Labor Code does not provide for the effects thereof. Thus, 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.