TOPIC: Requisite for
Validity of Election/ Failure of Election
FACTS:
Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor
Organizations (BWLU- ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees
of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO) alleging that BENECO has in its
employ 214 rank and file employees; that 198 or 92.5% of these employees have
supported the filing of the petition; that no certification election has been
conducted for the last 12 months; that there is no existing collective
bargaining representative of the rank and file employees sought to represented
by BWLU- ADLO; and, that there is no collective bargaining agreement in the
cooperative.
An opposition to the petition was filed by the Beneco Employees
Labor Union (BELU) contending that it was certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the subject workers pursuant to an order issued by
the med-arbiter; that pending resolution by the NLRC are two cases it filed
against BENECO involving bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice; and,
that the pendency of these cases bars any representation question.
BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition
claiming that it is a non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing
electric services to its members and patron-consumers; and, that the employees
sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing because they are members and joint
owners of the cooperative.
The med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the petition
for certification election. However, the med-arbiter limited the election among
the rank and file employees of BENECO who are non-members thereof and without
any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative. The med-arbiter
found that there are 37 employees who are not members and without any
involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative.
BELU and BENECO appealed but the same was dismissed for lack of
merit. So BENECO filed with the SC a petition for certiorari which the SC
dismissed for lack of merit in a minute resolution dated April 1986
.
The ordered certification election was held in October 1986. Prior
to the conduct thereof BENECO's counsel verbally manifested that "the cooperative
is protesting that employees who are members-consumers are being allowed to
vote when they are not eligible to be members of any labor union for purposes
of collective bargaining; much less, to vote in this certification
election." BENECO submitted a certification showing that only 4 employees
are not members of BENECO and insisted that only these employees are eligible
to vote in the certification election. Canvass of the votes showed that BELU
garnered 49 of the 83 "valid" votes cast.
Thereafter BENECO formalized its verbal manifestation by filing a
Protest. The med-arbiter dismissed the protest. BLR director Calleja affirmed
the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO.
ISSUE: W/N employees of a
cooperative are qualified to form or join a labor organization for purposes of
collective bargaining.
RULING: No
Under Article 256 LC, to have a valid
certification election, "at least a majority of all eligible voters in the
unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the
valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all
workers in the unit." BENECO asserts that the certification election held
was null and void since members-employees who are not eligible to form and join
a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining were allowed to vote
therein.
The issue has already been resolved and
clarified in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer
Calleja, et al. and reiterated in the cases of Batangas-Electric Cooperative
Labor Union v. Young, et al. and San Jose City Electric Service Cooperative,
Inc. v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, et al. wherein the Court had stated
that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a
cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof. With
respect, however, to employees who are neither members nor co-owners of the
cooperative they are entitled to exercise the rights to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the Constitution and
applicable statutes.
Calleja argues that to deny the members
of petitioner cooperative the right to form, assist or join a labor union of
their own choice for purposes of collective bargaining would amount to a patent
violation of their right to self-organization.
The above contention is untenable.
Contrary to respondents' claim, the fact that the members-employees of BENECO
do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make
them eligible to form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining with petitioner. The Court's ruling in the Davao City
case that members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for purposes of
collective bargaining was based on the fact that as members of the cooperative
they are co-owners thereof. As such, they cannot invoke the right to collective
bargaining for "certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his
co-owners." It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not
involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining
any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree
of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members
thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
Respondent union further claims that if
nominal ownership in a cooperative is "enough to take away the constitutional
protections afforded to labor, then there would be no hindrance for employers
to grant, on a scheme of generous profit sharing, stock bonuses to their
employees and thereafter claim that since their employees are stockholders,
albeit in a minimal and involuntary manner, they are now also co-owners and
thus disqualified to form unions."
The above contention is based on the
erroneous presumption that membership in a cooperative is the same as ownership
of stocks in ordinary corporations. While cooperatives may exercise some of the
rights and privileges given to ordinary corporations provided under existing
laws, such cooperatives enjoy other privileges not granted to the latter.
Similarly, members of cooperatives have rights and obligations different from
those of stockholders of ordinary corporations. It was precisely because of the
special nature of cooperatives, that the Court held in the Davao City case that
members-employees thereof cannot form or join a labor union for purposes of
collective bargaining. The Court held that:
A cooperative is by its nature different
from an ordinary business concern being run either by persons, partnerships, or
corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and operate the
business while the others are its employees. As above stated, irrespective of
the number of shares owned by each member they are entitled to cast one vote
each in deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. An employee therefore of
such a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right
to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or
his co-owners.
No comments:
Post a Comment