Topic: Cancellation of
Union Certificate of Registration
FACTS:
Petitioner
filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office a
Petition3 for Cancellation of the Certificate of Union Registration of
Respondent Samahang Lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMA1) on the ground that the
latter is guilty of misrepresentation, false statement and fraud with respect
to the number of those who participated in the organizational meeting, the
adoption and ratification of its Constitution and By-Laws, and in the election
of its officers.
Petitioner’s contentions:
a.
In
the organizational meeting of respondent, only 68 attendees signed the
attendance sheet, and which number comprised only 17% of the total number of
the 396 regular rank- and-file employees which respondent sought to represent,
and hence, respondent failed to comply with the 20% minimum membership
requirement.
b.
the
document "Pangalan ng mga Kasapi ng Unyon" bore no signatures of the
alleged 119 union members
c.
employees
were not given sufficient information on the documents they signed
d.
the
document "Sama-Samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi" was not submitted at the
time of the filing of respondent's application for union registration
e.
the
119 union members were actually only 117
f.
that
the total number of petitioner's employees as of May 1, 2009 was 470, and not
396 as respondent claimed
3 Respondent’s defense:
a.
denied
the charge and claimed that the 119 union members were more than the 20%
requirement for union registration
b.
contended
that petitioner was estopped from assailing its legal personality as it agreed
to a certification election and actively participated in the pre-election
conference of the certification election proceedings
c.
argued
that the union members were informed of the contents of the documents they
signed and that the 68 attendees to the organizational meeting constituted more
than 50% of the total union membership, hence, a quorum existed for the conduct
of the said meeting
DOLE
Regional Director issued a Decision granting the petition for cancellation of
respondent's certificate of registration. The Regional Director found that the
68 employees who attended the organizational meeting was obviously less than
20% of the total number of 396 regular rank-and-file employees which respondent
sought to represent, hence, short of the union registration requirement;
BLR
rendered its Decision reversing the Order of the Regional Director. BLR found that
the list of employees who participated in the organizational meeting was a
separate and distinct requirement from the list of the names of members
comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit
CA
affirmed BLR
ISSUE: W/N respondent’s registration
should be cancelled on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation bearing on
the minimum requirement of the law as to its membership, considering the big
disparity in numbers, between the organizational meeting and the list of
members
RULING: Registration should
not be cancelled. No fraud or misrepresentation.
RATIO: It does not appear
in Article 234 (b) of the Labor Code that the attendees in the organizational
meeting must comprise 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit. In fact,
even the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code does not so
provide. It is only under Article 234 (c) that requires the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. Clearly, the 20% minimum requirement
pertains to the employees’ membership in the union and not to the list of
workers who participated in the organizational meeting. Indeed, Article 234 (b)
and (c) provide for separate requirements, which must be submitted for the
union's registration, and which respondent did submit. Here, the total number
of employees in the bargaining unit was 396, and 20% of which was about 79.
Respondent submitted a document entitled "Pangalan ng Mga Kasapi ng Unyon"
showing the names of 119 employees as union members, thus respondent
sufficiently complied even beyond the 20% minimum membership requirement.
Respondent also submitted the attendance sheet of the organizational meeting
which contained the names and signatures of the 68 union members who attended
the meeting. Considering that there are 119 union members which are more than
20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit, and since the law does not
provide for the required number of members to attend the organizational
meeting, the 68 attendees which comprised at least the majority of the 119
union members would already constitute a quorum for the meeting to proceed and
to validly ratify the Constitution and By-laws of the union. There is,
therefore, no basis for petitioner to contend that grounds exist for the
cancellation of respondent's union registration. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation of union registration under
Article 239 of the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation
must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of
union members.
DISPOSITIVE: Samahan won. Their
registration should not be cancelled.
DOCTRINE: Clearly, the 20%
minimum requirement pertains to the employees’ membership in the union and not
to the list of workers who participated in the organizational meeting.
For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds
for cancellation of union registration under Article 239 of the Labor Code, the
nature of the fraud and misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough
to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.
No comments:
Post a Comment