The Heritage Hotel Manila, Acting Through Its Owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA
HOTEL CORPORATION vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
October 11, 1995- Respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant and
Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC)
filed a petition for certification election,seeking to represent all the supervisory
employees of Heritage Hotel Manila.
February 14, 1996- The petitioner filed its opposition, but the opposition was deemed
denied when Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando issued his order for the conduct of
the certification election. The petitioner appealed the order of Med-Arbiter Fernando,
but the appeal was also denied. A pre-election conference was then scheduled.
February 20, 1998 -However, the pre-election conference was suspended until further
notice because of the repeated non-appearance of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.
January 29, 2000 -NUWHRAIN-HHMSC moved for the conduct of the pre-election
conference. The petitioner primarily filed its comment on the list of employees
submitted by NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, and simultaneously sought the exclusion of some
from the list of employees for occupying either confidential or managerial positions. T
April 17, 2000 -The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss , raising the prolonged lack of
interest of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC to pursue its petition for certification election.
May 12, 2000 -The petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-
HHMSC’s registration as a labor union for failing to submit its annual financial reports
and an updated list of members as required by Article 238 and Article 239 of
the Labor Code, docketed as Case No. NCR-OD-0005-004-IRD entitled The Heritage
Hotel Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation v. National
Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHSMC). It filed another motion on June 1, 2000 to
seek either the dismissal or the suspension of the proceedings on the basis of its
pending petition for the cancellation of union registration. Y
June 23, 2000 -The following day, however, the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) issued a notice scheduling the certification elections. R
oJune 14, 2000 -Dissatisfied, the petitioner commenced in the CA a special civil
action for certiorari,alleging that the DOLE gravely abused its discretion in not
suspending the certification election proceedings. O
June 23, 2000 -The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for non-exhaustion of

administrative remedies. The certification election proceeded as scheduled, and
NUWHRAIN-HHMSC obtained the majority vote of the bargaining unit. The petitioner
filed a protest (with motion to defer the certification of the election results and the
winner insisting on the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.
January 26, 2001 The Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin issued an order, ruling that
the petition for the cancellation of union registration was not a bar to the holding of
the certification election, and disposing thus the premises considered, respondent
employer/protestant’s protest with motion to defer certification of results and winner
is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
August 21, 2002 - The DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas issued a resolution
denying the appeal, and affirming the order of Med-Arbiter Falconitin, the appeal is
DENIED.
December 13, 2005 -The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, giving its following
disquisition the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner is, in essence, a
continuation of the debate on the relevance of the Toyota Motor, Dunlop
Slazenger and Progressive Developmentcases to the issues raised. Toyota
Motor and Dunlop Slazenger are anchored on the provisions of Article 245 of the
Labor Code which prohibit managerial employees from joining any labor union and
permit supervisory employees to form a separate union of their own.
June 23, 2000 - The petitioner posits that the grounds for dismissing a petition for the
certification election under Section 11, Rule XI of Department Order No. 9, Series of
1997, were not exclusive because the other grounds available under the Rules of
Court could be invoked; that in Progressive Development Corporation v. Secretary,
Department of Labor and Employment,the Court ruled that prudence could justify the
suspension of the certification election proceedings until the issue of the legality of the
union registration could be finally resolved; that the non-submission of the annual
financial statements and the list of members in the period from 1996 to 1999
constituted a serious challenge to NUWHRAIN-HHMSC’s right to file its petition for the
certification election; and that from the time of the conduct of the certification election,
the composition of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC had substantially changed, thereby
necessitating another certification election to determine the true will of the bargaining
unit.
June 21, 1997 -The court denies the petition for review on certiorari. Basic in the
realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole concern of the
workers, and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the certification election is
concerned. Thus, the petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings
for the certification election, and should stand aside as a mere bystander who could
not oppose the petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiter’s orders relative to the conduct
of the certification election.
October 11, 1995- The petitioner’s meddling in the conduct of the certification election
among its employees unduly gave rise to the suspicion that it intended to establish a
company union. For that reason, the challenges it posed against the certification
election proceedings were rightly denied.
December 13, 2005 -The court cannot ascribe abuse of discretion to the Regional
Director and the DOLE Secretary in denying the petition for cancellation of
respondent's registration. The union members and, in fact, all the employees
belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit should not be deprived of a bargaining
agent, merely because of the negligence of the union officers who were responsible for
the submission of the documents to the BLR. Labor authorities should, indeed, act
with circumspection in treating petitions for cancellation of union registration, lest
they be accused of interfering with union activities. Labor authorities should bear in
mind that registration confers upon a union the status of legitimacy and the
concomitant right and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization,
particularly the right to participate in or ask for certification election in a bargaining
unit. Thus, the cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing
out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses as a rule its
rights under the Labor Code.

The Heritage Hotel Manila, Acting Through Its Owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Heritage Hotel Manila, Acting Through Its Owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

The Heritage Hotel Manila, Acting Through Its Owner, Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, ACTING THROUGH ITS OWNER, GRAND PLAZA

HOTEL CORPORATION vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

June 23, 2000 -The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for non-exhaustion of

You might also like