Scribd
Upload
30 views2 pages

Filed A Petition For Certification Election Seeking To Represent All The Supervisory Employees of Heritage

Uploaded by

Cham Vasquez

1. The petitioner union filed a petition for certification election to represent the regular employees of the respondent company. The respondent claimed the petitioner was not a legitimate union. 2. The court found that the petitioner complied with documentation requirements to be considered a legitimate union under the prevailing rules. Inclusion of some supervisory employees did not invalidate its status. 3. An employer cannot collaterally attack a union's legal personality in a certification election proceeding as the employer is merely a bystander in such processes aimed to determine employee representation.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

Filed A Petition For Certification Election Seeking To Represent All The Supervisory Employees of Heritage

Uploaded by

Cham Vasquez
30 views2 pages
1. The petitioner union filed a petition for certification election to represent the regular employees of the respondent company. The respondent claimed the petitioner was not a legitimate union. 2. The court found that the petitioner complied with documentation requirements to be considered a legitimate union under the prevailing rules. Inclusion of some supervisory employees did not invalidate its status. 3. An employer cannot collaterally attack a union's legal personality in a certification election proceeding as the employer is merely a bystander in such processes aimed to determine employee representation.

Original Title

135-136

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

1. The petitioner union filed a petition for certification election to represent the regular employees of the respondent company. The respondent claimed the petitioner was not a legitimate union. 2. The court found that the petitioner complied with documentation requirements to be considered a legitimate union under the prevailing rules. Inclusion of some supervisory employees did not invalidate its status. 3. An employer cannot collaterally attack a union's legal personality in a certification election proceeding as the employer is merely a bystander in such processes aimed to determine employee representation.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
30 views2 pages

Filed A Petition For Certification Election Seeking To Represent All The Supervisory Employees of Heritage

Uploaded by

Cham Vasquez
1. The petitioner union filed a petition for certification election to represent the regular employees of the respondent company. The respondent claimed the petitioner was not a legitimate union. 2. The court found that the petitioner complied with documentation requirements to be considered a legitimate union under the prevailing rules. Inclusion of some supervisory employees did not invalidate its status. 3. An employer cannot collaterally attack a union's legal personality in a certification election proceeding as the employer is merely a bystander in such processes aimed to determine employee representation.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

CHAM (c) The local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws provided that

Case No. 135 where the local/chapter’s constitution and by-laws [are] the
BARGAINING AGENT AND CERTIFICATION ELECTION PROCEEDINGS same as [those] of the federation or national union, this fact shall
Samahang Manggagawa sa Charter Chemical v. Charter Chemical be indicated accordingly.
and Coating
The alleged documents not executed under oath are not among the
FACTS documents that need to be submitted to the Regional Office or Bureau of
1. Petitioners filed a petition for certification election among Labor Relations to register a labor organization. 
the regular rank-and-file employees of respondent
Second, the inclusion of supervisory employees does not nullify its legal
2. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that personality. While the previous omnibus rules had a provision stating
petitioner is not a legitimate labor organization because of that a bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees must not be mingled
failure to comply with the documentation requirements and with supervisory employees, the same was removed in the 1997
the inclusion of supervisory employees amended omnibus rules. Instead, what was required was a mere plain
description of the bargaining unit.
3. The Med-Arbiter dismissed the petition. DOLE reversed and
gave due course to the petition. Since the petition was filed in 1999, the 1997 omnibus rules were still in
effect. As a result, petitioner union was not divested of its status as a
4. CA, however, agreed with the Med-Arbiter that the Charter legitimate labor organization even if some of its members were
Certificate, Sama-samang Pahayag ng Pagsapi at supervisory employees; it had the right to file the subject petition for
Authorization, and Listahan ng mga Dumalo sa certification election.
Pangkalahatang Pulong at mga Sumang-ayon at Nagratipika
sa Saligang Batas were not executed under oath. Hence, they Lastly, the legal personality could not be attacked collaterally in a
were not a legitimate organization certification election proceeding. An employer is a mere bystander to
any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial
ISSUE and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which
Whether or not the petition for certification election should be given due organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining
course with the employees.

RULING/MAIN POINT CHAM


Yes. First, the then prevailing Implementing Rules provides that “A duly Case No. 136
registered federation or national union may directly create a BARGAINING AGENT AND CERTIFICATION ELECTION PROCEEDINGS
local/chapter by submitting to the Regional Office or to the Bureau two Heritage Hotel v. Secretary/ National Union of Workers of Heritage
(2) copies of the following: Manila

(a) A charter certificate issued by the federation or national FACTS


union indicating the creation or establishment of the 1. Respondent filed a petition for certification election seeking to
local/chapter; represent all the supervisory employees of Heritage.
(b) The names of the local/chapter’s officers, their addresses,
and the principal office of the local/chapter; and 2. Petitioner opposed but the same was denied by the Med-Arbiter
along with its appeal
3. A pre-election conference was then scheduled but was cancelled
because of the repeated non-appearance of respondent.
Petitioner, again, filed a motion to dismiss, raising the prolonged
lack of interest to pursue its certification

4. Pending the motion to dismiss, petitioner filed a petition to


cancel respondent’s registration claiming that it failed to submit
its annual financial reports and updated list of members
required by the Labor Code.

5. The following day, however, DOLE issued a notice scheduling the


certification elections. The certification election proceeded, and
respondent obtained majority vote.

6. Petitioner moved to defer the certification of the election results


insisting that question of respondent’s legitimacy as a labor
organization was still pending due to its non-submission

ISSUE
whether or not the certification case should be suspended until the issue
of the legality of the registration of the union is finally resolved

RULING/MAIN POINT
No. 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.

Under the long-established rule, too, the filing of the petition for the
cancellation of respondent’s registration should not bar the conduct of
the certification election. In that respect, only a final order for the
cancellation of the registration would have prevented respondent from
continuing to enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor
union, including the right to the petition for the certification election.
This rule is now enshrined in Article 238-A of the Labor Code

You might also like