CASE DIGEST: AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC. V. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA

AIRTIME SPECIALISTS, INC.

VS

DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS FERRER-CALLEJA

[Dec 29, 1989]

NATURE

Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction

FACTS

Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-FFW Chapter (SAMA-ASIA, for short) filed with the National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, two separate petitions for direct certification and/or certification election on behalf of the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioners Airtime Specialists and Absolute Sound, Inc. The other respondent Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawa sa Ataco-FFW Chapter (PMA for short) also filed with the same office, on the same day, similar separate petitions in behalf of the regular rank and file employees of petitioners Country-Wealth Development, Ad Planner and Marketing Counsellors and Atlas Resources.

All these five cases were consolidated. Petitioners filed their position paper with motion to dismiss on the following grounds — disaffiliation of the rank and file employees, ineligibility of some signatories because they had less than one (1) year of service resulting in the non-compliance with the 30% requirement. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order mandating a certification election to be conducted among the rank and file employees of the Airtime Specialists, Inc.; Absolute Sound, Inc.; Commonwealth Development Corporation; Ad Planners & Mktg. Corp.; and Atlas Resources & Management Group, within 20 days from receipt of the Order.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration having been denied they filed the instant petition for “Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction” with a Prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining public respondents from conducting any further proceedings in the said five cases.

ISSUE

WON the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion in ordering a certification election

HELD

YES. It is Our holding in the case of B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc. vs. B.F. Goodrich Confidential & Salaried Employees Union-NATU (49 SCRA 532) that the objectives of the Industrial Peace Act would be sooner attained if at the earliest opportunity the employees, all of them, in an appropriate bargaining unit be pooled to determine which labor organization should be its exclusive representative. This Court had made it clear that We should give discretion to the Court of Industrial Relations, or in this case, the Bureau of Labor Relations in deciding whether or not to grant a petition for certification election considering the facts and circumstances of which it has intimate knowledge. Moreover, a perusal of Art. 258 of the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 442 reveals that compliance with the 30% requirement (now 20%) makes it mandatory upon the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a certification election in order to determine the exclusive-bargaining agent of the employees. Stated otherwise, it means that with such, the Bureau is left without any discretion but to order the holding of certification election. Parenthetically, where the petition is supported by less than 30% (now 20%) the Bureau of Labor Relations has discretion whether or not to order the holding of certification election depending on the circumstances of the case. Thus, it is Our holding in LVN Pictures vs. Musicians Guild, et al. (1 SCRA 132) that in connection with certification election, the Court of Industrial Relations enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees, and having exercised its sound discretion, this Court cannot interfere. (Arguelles v. Young, 153 SCRA 690).

Dispositive

Petition denied