PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS v. NORIEL

Topic: Certification Election – Process and Procedure; Effect of Private Agreement

QUICKIE SUMMARY: PLUM filed a petition for certification election but this was opposed by PTGWO claiming that they (PTGWO) are the recognized collective bargaining representative of the employees of the company. PTGWO also invoked the Code of Ethics of TUCP, a federation were both of them are members. The records of the case were forwarded to TUCP and TUCP declared that PTGWO is the exclusive bargaining agent. BLR Director Noriel sustained TUCP’s decision and ratiocinated that the internal rules of the federation must be kept intact. SC ruled that TUCP has no authority to declare such and allowed PLUM to file their certification election and let the employees vote who they want to be their collective bargaining representative.

FACTS:

Plum Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers (PLUM) filed a petition, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers of Manila Jockey Club, Inc.

Manila Jockey Club Race Day Operation Employees Labor Union-PTGWO filed a motion to intervene and opposition to said petition and alleged that it is the recognized collective bargaining representative of all the employees of the company and that it is in the process of negotiating a modification of the collective bargaining agreement.

Another supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by intervenor PTGWO, this time invoking the "No Union Raiding Clause" of the "Code of Ethics" adopted by the members of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) wherein both petitioner and intervenor are members, and claiming that the petition failed to satisfy the 30% requirement of the law. The entire record of the case was forwarded to the Office of the President of the TUCP for the purpose of submitting the matter to the Congress for decision.

TUCP’s decision: MJCR-OELU-PTGWO be declared as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, thus dismissing the petition of PLUM

Petitioner PLUM filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations predicated on the ground that TUCP has no authority in law to grant or deny election under the Labor Code which mandated the secret ballot to elect the true union representative.

BLR Director: dismissed PLUM’s the appeal. The ratio of the BLR was “While it may be true that the facts of the case may warrant the holding of a certification election in the bargaining unit concerned, to sustain first the decision arrived at by the National Executive Board of TUCP appears of indispensable importance. Contenders in the case at bar are both members of TUCP. Undeniably, there are internal rules including their Code of Ethics to keep them intact, to govern their actions and finally to preserve the Congress. It is therefore, a matter of utmost necessity that a decision arrived at by the National Executive Board be respected and enforced not only by the members of the Congress themselves but also by this Bureau and the Department if necessity arises”

ISSUE: W/N TUCP (here both PLU and PTGWO) has the authority to supersede or impair the holding of a certification election or deny the majority employees of their right to elect their own union

RULING: NO. Certification election is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force. It is a fundamental postulate that the win of the majrity if given expression in an honest election with freedom on the part of the voters to make their choice, is controlling. Protection to labor and freedom of peaceful assembly and association are guaranteed by the Constitution.

A letter from the president of respondent union reveals the present state of affairs of the employees wherein they are deprived of the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement, for management refused to bargain with the union. If this situation continues, the employees would stand to lose a long-line of cases that the workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process.

As to the issue of whether or not the 30% minimum subscription requirement was met, it was held that the Director is still empowered to call for a certification election provided there was no abuse of discretion. However, in the case at bar, instead of ordering an election, respondent Director dismissed the appeal of PLUM based on the decision of the TUCP, which the Court considers an impairment of the freedom of the workers to voice out their choice of the union to represent them. If there is any doubt as to the required number having met, there would be no better way than the holding of a certification election to ascertain which union really commands the allegiance of the rank-and-file employees. If the desired goal is for the execution of a collective bargaining contract to protect the workers, then certification election is the most appropriate means to attain said end.

Since there has been no certification election for the past three (3) years as well as a certified collective bargaining agreement which should govern the economic and working conditions of the workers, a certification election should immediately be ordered.