Topic:
Certification Election – Process; Substantial Support
Facts:
The workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)’s collective bargaining agreement with private respondents Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA.
The first challenge to APCWU was hurled on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted on March 26, 1990. Herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.
Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990. The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
Specifically, APCWU faulted both petitions for non-compliance with the requirement for the 25% consent signatures at the time of filing. This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter. PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor on June 28, 1990, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. The principal petitioners did not appeal. DOLE Undersec. affirmed. Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28, 1990. This was ratified on October 7, 1990, by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, i.e., 910 out of the 1,223 members, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.
The petitioner argues that under this article (Art. 268 in syllabus), the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. Private respondents said that decision is supported by the Implementing Rules and that decisions of the Secretary in certification election cases shall be final and unappealable.
Issue: WON SAMADA and PEALU properly complied with the 25% requirement provided in Art. 256 (268 in syllabus) of the Labor Code. WON PWUP has a right to intervene.
The workers of the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI)’s collective bargaining agreement with private respondents Associate Port Checkers and Workers Union (APCWU), the incumbent union, was due to expire on April 14, 1990. Other unions were seeking to represent the laborers in the negotiation of the next CBA.
The first challenge to APCWU was hurled on March 14, 1990, when the Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Daungan (SAMADA) filed a petition for certification election. The consent signatures of at least 25% of the employees in the bargaining unit were submitted on March 26, 1990. Herein petitioner Port Workers Union of the Philippines (PWUP) filed a petition for intervention.
Still another petition for certification election was filed by the Port Employees Association and Labor Union (PEALU), on April 6, 1990. The consent signatures were submitted on May 11, 1990. The petitions of SAMADA and PEALU were consolidated for joint decision. On April 26, 1990, APCWU filed a motion to dismiss them on the ground that they did not comply with the requirement set forth in Section 6, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
Specifically, APCWU faulted both petitions for non-compliance with the requirement for the 25% consent signatures at the time of filing. This contention was upheld by the Med-Arbiter. PWUP appealed to the Secretary of Labor on June 28, 1990, arguing that Article 256 of the Labor Code did not require the written consent to be submitted simultaneously with the petition for certification election. The principal petitioners did not appeal. DOLE Undersec. affirmed. Thereafter, ICTSI and APCWU resumed negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which was concluded on September 28, 1990. This was ratified on October 7, 1990, by a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit, i.e., 910 out of the 1,223 members, and subsequently registered with the DOLE.
The petitioner argues that under this article (Art. 268 in syllabus), the Med-Arbiter should automatically order election by secret ballot when the petition is supported by at least 25% of all employees in the bargaining unit. SAMADA and PEALU substantially complied with the law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after filing the petition. The petitioner complains that the dismissal of the petitions for certification election, including its own petition for intervention, had the effect of indirectly certifying APCWU as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the ICTSI employees. Private respondents said that decision is supported by the Implementing Rules and that decisions of the Secretary in certification election cases shall be final and unappealable.
Issue: WON SAMADA and PEALU properly complied with the 25% requirement provided in Art. 256 (268 in syllabus) of the Labor Code. WON PWUP has a right to intervene.
Ruling:
Yes, The Court feels that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256 (268 in syllabus), the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, the Court holds that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
Yes, although It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not applicable to a petition in intervention. The contention that the petitioners had no right to represent the principal petitioners which had not appealed the dismissal order is also not acceptable. We repeat that the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their dealings with management.
Yes, The Court feels that the administrative rule requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25% consent signatures upon the filing of petition for certification election should not be strictly applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representative of the workers. Significantly, the requirement in the rule is not found in Article 256 (268 in syllabus), the law it seeks to implement. This is all the more reason why the regulation should at best be given only a directory effect. Accordingly, the Court holds that the mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing.
Yes, although It is not denied that the petition to intervene filed by PWUP did not carry the 25% consent signatures, but that the requirement is in fact not applicable to a petition in intervention. The contention that the petitioners had no right to represent the principal petitioners which had not appealed the dismissal order is also not acceptable. We repeat that the certification election is not litigation but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character where the rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support of confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in their dealings with management.
The above-quoted decision (PAFLU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, stating that the consent only applies to
certification elections only, and not to motion for intervention) affirms the
right of PWUP to call for the holding of the election although it was initially
only an intervenor. That recognition should not be defeated by the circumstance
that the other petitioning unions have not seen fit to appeal the dismissal of
their petitions even if such dismissal was questionable and is in fact being
reversed here. The petition for intervention was viable at the time it was
filed because the principal petitions had complied with the requirement for the
consent signatures as specified by Article 256. Hence, its intervention should
not be disallowed simply because of the withdrawal or failure to appeal of
SAMADA and PEALU.
No comments:
Post a Comment