Philtranco V BLR

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, petitioner, it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such
vs. it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.

BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS and KAPISANAN NG MGA
KAWANI, ASSISTANT, MANGGAGAWA AT KONPIDENSIYAL On April 4, 1988, a resolution was rendered dismissing the
SA PHILTRANCO, respondents. Petition of Certification Election filed by KASAMA KO.
FACTS: KASAMA KO appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)

On September 5, 1988 the BLR reversed the resolution of the
Petitioner Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. is a land Med-Arbiter. A motion for reconsideration was denied in an order
transportation company engaged in the business of carrying dated October 10, 1988.
passengers and freight. The company employees included field
workers consisting of drivers, conductors, coach drivers, coach ISSUE:
stewards and mechanics and office employees like clerks, 1. WON the BLRs decision of granting KASAMA KOs Petition for
cashiers, programmers, telephone operators, etc. Certification Election was proper (NO)
2. WON there exists substantial differences between the work
On February 15, 1988, the Kapisanan ng mga Kawani, Assistant, performed by respondents and the rank and file employees (NO)
Manggagawa at Konpidensyal sa Philtranco (KASAMA KO) filed
a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor
RATIO:
and Employment, alleging among others that it desires to
represent all professional, technical, administrative, and
confidential employees personnel of respondent at its 1. Section 11 of Rule II, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
establishments in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao for purposes of implementing the Labor Code did away with existing supervisors'
collective bargaining. unions classifying the members either as managerial or rank and
file employees depending on the work they perform. If they
discharge managerial functions, supervisors are prohibited from
They claim that the employees which they seek to represent were
forming or joining any labor organization. If they do not perform
always excluded from participating in the certification election
managerial work, they may join the rank and file union and if none
among rank and file employees and are also excluded from the
exists, they may form one such rank and file organization. This
bargaining unit covered by the CBA between the company and its
rule was emphasized in the case of Bulletin Publishing Corp. v.
rank and file employees.
Sanchez,
On February 24, 1988, the National Mines and Allied Workers
It, therefore, follows that the members of the KASAMA KO who
Union (NAMAWU-MIF) filed a motion for intervention alleging that
are professional, technical, administrative and confidential
personnel of PHILTRANCO performing managerial functions are another unit for messengers and drivers, and so on in needless
not qualified to join, much less form a union. profusion.
The respondents claim that their status as rank and file 2. The respondents state that this case is an exception to the
employees was allegedly recognized by this Court in the case of general rule considering that substantial differences exist
Pantranco South Express, Inc. v. NAMAWU. However, their between the office employees or professional, technical,
reliance in this cse is misplaced because we denied their petition administrative and confidential employees vis-a-vis the field
for lack of merit in a minute resolution. There was absolutely no workers or drivers, conductors and mechanics of the petitioner.
discussion on the recognition of another separate rank and file Against this contention, we find that the "substantial differences"
union in addition to the existing bargaining unit. in the terms and conditions of employment between the private
respondent's members and the rest of the company's rank and
Managers by any name may not join the rank and file union. On file employees are more imagined than real. PHILTRANCO is a
the other hand, those who are rank and file workers may join the large bus company engaged in the business of carrying
existing bargaining unit instead of organizing another bargaining passengers and freight, servicing Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
unit and compelling the employer to deal with it. Certainly there is a commonality of interest among filing clerks,
dispatchers, drivers, typists, and field men. They are all interested
We are constrained to disallow the formation of another union. in the progress of their company and in each worker sharing in
There is no dispute that there exists a labor union in the the fruits of their endeavors equitably and generously. Their
company, herein intervenor, the NAMAWU-MIF which is the functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in
collective bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in the same way that the company needs them all. The drivers,
PHILTRANCO. mechanics and conductors are necessary for the company but
technical, administrative and office personnel are also needed
We see no need for the formation of another union in and equally important for the smooth operation of the business.
PHILTRANCO. The qualified members of the KASAMA KO may There may be differences as to the nature of their individual
join the NAMAWU-MIF if they want to be union members, and to assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the
be consistent with the one-union, one-company policy of the formation of separate unions. The private respondent has not
Department of Labor and Employment, and the laws it enforces. even shown that a separate bargaining unit would be beneficial to
the employees concerned. Office employees also belong to the
It would not be in the interest of sound labor-management rank and file. There is an existing employer wide unit in the
relations if each group of employees assigned to a specialized company represented by NAMAWU-MIF. And as earlier stated,
function or section would decide to break away from their fellow- the fact that NAMAWU-MIF moved to intervene in the petition for
workers and form their own separate bargaining unit. We cannot certification election filed by KASAMA KO negates the allegations
allow one unit for typists and clerks, one unit for accountants, that "substantial differences" exist between the employees
concerned. We find a commonality of interest among them. There April 4, 1988 is REINSTATED. The restraining order issued by the
are no compelling reasons for the formation of another union. Court on November 7, 1988 is made permanent.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations, SO ORDERED.

dated September 5, 1988 and the Order dated October 10, 1988
are hereby SET ASIDE. The resolution of the Med-Arbiter dated

Philtranco V BLR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philtranco V BLR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philtranco V BLR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, petitioner, it is the bargaining agent of the workers at Philtranco and as such

vs. it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the petition.

FACTS: KASAMA KO appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations, SO ORDERED.

You might also like