CASE DIGEST: Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila v. Laguesma

Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila

VS

Laguesma

212 SCRA 281

[Aug. 6, 1992]

Nature

Petition for Certiorari

Facts

-Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is engaged in the construction and fabrication business and conducts its construction business in different construction sites here and abroad while its fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel and Marine Structures Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard.

-Atlantic has adopted the practice of hiring project employees when existing fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for steel structures and other heavy construction works. Said project employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements which indicate the specific projects to which they are assigned and the duration of their employment. Upon the expiration of their contracts/agreements, the employment of these employees is automatically terminated unless the projects to which they are assigned have not yet been completed, in which case, they are rehired for the remainder of the project. The positions occupied by the regular rank-and-file employees and the project employees are basically similar in nature and are directly related to the main line of petitioner’s business.

-Atlantic executed a CBA with the AG&P United Rank & File Association (“URFA”, for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner.

-Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor (“LAKAS-NFL”, for brevity) filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbitration Unit. Med-Arbiter Tomas F. Falconitin of the Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order for certification election.

-Atlantic filed an appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment. Alleged project employees sought to be represented by private respondent LAKAS-NFL were formally issued regular employment appointments by the Atlantic. Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment Bienvenido E. Laguesma denied Atlantic’s appeal for lack of merit. Atlantic’s project employees at its SMSG site who were not given regular employment appointment went on strike and completely paralyzed Atlantic’s operations in Bauan, Batangas. Strike was settled in a conciliation conference, an Agreement was reached by the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL wherein petitioner agreed to formally regularize all the remaining alleged project employees with at least one year of service pending the final outcome of the certification election case. Thereafter, 686 additional regular project employees were regularized effective December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said Agreement.

-On December 6, 1990, Atlantic received a letter from URFA informing the former about the admission into URFA of the membership of 410 regular project employees who were formally regularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990. Atlantic filed MFR alleging that the employees sought to be represented by the private respondent LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of the petitioner and are deemed included in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement of the regular rank-and-file employees of Atlantic. Undersecretary Laguesma denied it.

Issue

WON Laguesma was wrong in applying the CONTRACT-BAR rule and failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged regular workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the regularization of all said workers

Held

Yes, he committed grave abuse of discretion. Section 1 of Article II of petitioner’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as follows: ARTICLE II :Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The appropriate bargaining unit covered by this Agreement consists of those regular rank-and-file employees of the COMPANY who have remained as such up to the date of execution of this Agreement, as well as those who may hereafter acquire the same status. It is hereby understood and agreed that the following are not within the appropriate bargaining unit and, therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:

a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff members, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;

b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this Contract. Provided, however, that regular employees who are assigned as relievers shall continue to be covered by this Contract, and provided further that relievers who are assigned to regular positions which may become vacant shall be duly considered for such regular positions after attaining the six months probationary period.

c. Security personnel.”

Although the aforementioned definition does not include petitioner’s regular project employees in the coverage of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the URFA, the regularization of all the regular project employees with at least one year of service and the subsequent membership of said employees with the URFA mean that the alleged regular project employees whom respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in fact, regular employees by contemplation of law and included in the appropriate bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.

The Labor Code provides:

“Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duty registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.” Paragraph 2 of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations likewise provides: “If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.”

-Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular project employees with more than one year of service, bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification election except within the 60-dayperiod prior to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

-To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment of Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the collective bargaining agreement.

Disposition

Petition Granted When Applied