TOPIC: One Year
Bar/Certification year Rule
FACTS:
Respondent Christian Labor Organization of the Philippines (CLOP), filed with the Med-Arbitration
Unit of the DOLE a petition for certification election among the rank and file
employees of the petitioner (NCR-OD-M-91-01-002).
Med-Arbiter A. Dizon dismissed the petition on the ground that the
bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondent did not include all the
eligible employees of petitioner but only the drivers, conductors and
conductresses to the exclusion of the inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers,
mechanics and washerboys.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! Respondent CLOP rectified its mistake and filed
a second petition for certification election, which included all the rank and
file employees of the company, who hold non-managerial. and non-supervisorial
positions.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the second petition and
contended that the dismissal of the first petition constituted res judicata.
Petitioner argued that respondent CLOP should have interposed an appeal to the
dismissal of the first petition and its failure to do so barred it from filing
another petition for certification election.
Med-Arbiter R. Parungo rendered a decision, which ordered that a
certification election among the regular rank and file workers of petitioner
company be conducted.
Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) filed a motion for intervention
and alleged that it has members in the proposed bargaining unit. Subsequently,
the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) filed a separate petition for
certification election and a motion to consolidate related cases to avoid
confusion.
Dissatisfied with the Decision dated July 3, 1991 rendered by
Med-Arbiter R. Parungo, petitioner appealed to the DOLE Secretary, who, through
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma,
affirmed the Med-Arbiter in its Resolution dated July 22, 1992 calling for the
conduct of the certification election.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, again stressing the
principle of res judicata. Petitioner further argued that the second petition
for a certification election by respondent CLOP, NAFLU and ALU-TUCP were barred
at least for a period of one year from the time the first petition of CLOP was
dismissed pursuant to Section Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code as amended. The said MR was denied
Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on
Prejudicial Questions as an Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed on
July 31, 1992. Petitioner argued that the present case must be indefinitely
suspended until the following cases are resolved by the NLRC and the Supreme
Court: a) NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04708-91 entitled "R". Transport
Corporation v. Jose S. Torregaza, et. al., wherein Labor Arbiter de Castro
declared the strike staged by respondent CLOP illegal and ordered the strikers
to pay petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; b) NLRC-NCR
Case No. 06-03415092 filed by respondent CLOP and its members for illegal
dismissal; and NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-04389-92 filed by respondent CLOP in
behalf of its affected members for illegal dismissal (Rollo, pp. 139-145).
Undersecretary Laguesma in a resolution denied the motion to suspend the
conduct of the certification election.
This must be so, because the employees subject of the pending
cases before the NLRC legally remain as employees of respondent until the
motion to declare them as having lost their employment status by reason of the
illegal strike or their complaint for illegal dismissal is finally resolved.
(Rollo, pp. 181-182; emphasis supplied). MR was again denied.
Petitioner filed a Comment and Objection to the Order dated
October 29, 1992 with Urgent Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Certification
Election. Without waiting for the resolution of the motion to dismiss,
petitioner resorted to this Court by way of the instant special civil action.
ISSUE: WON the second
petition for certification election should have been filed after one year from
the dismissal of the first petition certification election under Section 3,
Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules?
RULING: NO.
In the case at bench, it cannot be said that the parties in the
first and second actions were identical. The first action was dismissed by the
Med-Arbiter because it excluded parties essential to the bargaining unit such
as inspectors, inspectresses, dispatchers and washer boys. The second petition
included all the employees who were excluded in the first petition. Therefore,
the Med-Arbiter was correct when he gave due course to the second petition for
certification election after respondent CLOP corrected its mistake.
Likewise untenable is petitioner's contention that the second
petition for certification election should have been filed after one year from
the dismissal of the first petition certification election under Section 3,
Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code as amended.
Said section provides as follows:
When to file — In the absence of collective bargaining agreement
duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election may be filed any time. However, no certification
election may be held within one year from the date of the issuance of a final
certification election result (Emphasis supplied).
Apparently, petitioner misread the above-mentioned provision of
law. The phrase "final certification election result" means that
there was an actual conduct of election i.e. ballots were cast and there was a
counting of votes. In this case, there was no certification election conducted
precisely because the first petition was dismissed, on the ground of a defective
petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly
included in the collective bargaining unit.
Devoid of merit is petitioner's contention that the employment
status of the members of respondent CLOP who joined the strike must first be
resolved before a certification election can be conducted.
It should be noted that it is the petitioner, the employer, which
has offered the most tenacious resistance to the holding of a certification
election. This must not be so for the choice of a collective bargaining agent
is the sole concern of the employees. The employer has no right to interfere in
the election and is merely regarded as a bystander (Divine Word University of
Tacloban v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]).
Finally, petitioner's Comment and Objection to the Order dated
October 29, 1992 with Urgent Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Certification
Election is still pending with the Undersecretary of Labor. The resort to
judicial action by petitioner is premature. Hence, it is also guilty of
forum-shopping in pursuing the same cause of action involving the same issue,
parties and subject matter before two different fora.
No comments:
Post a Comment