CASE DIGEST: NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM) VS LAGUESMA

NOTRE DAME of GREATER MANILA (NDGM)

VS

LAGUESMA

433 SCRA 244

June 28, 2004

NATURE

Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

FACTS

-Notre Dame of Greater Manila Teachers and Employees Union (NDGMTEU) a legitimate labor organization duly accredited and registered with DOLE filed with Med-Arbitration Branch a petition for direct certification as sole and exclusive bargaining agent or certification election among the rank and file employees of NDGM. Med Arbiter issued an order granting the certification election (in accordance with A257 of LC, considering that NDGM was an unorganized establishment, to give each employee a fair chance to choose their bargaining agent) and ordering Representation officer Francisco to undertake a pre-election conference.

-during the pre-election conference, the parties agreed that the certification election shall be conducted and that the eligible voters shall be those employees appearing in the list submitted by management (who were regular employees). NDGM registered a motion to include probationary and substitute employees in the list of qualified voters, but was denied by Med-Arbiter through a notation. NDGM filed an appeal to Labor Secretary, pending appeal, public respondents conducted a certification election where NDGMTEU won (56 vs 23 who did not want a union). NDGM filed a written notice of protest against the conduct and results of the certification of election, which was opposed by NDGMTEU. NDGMTEU filed a motion to certify their union as the exclusive bargaining agent of NDGM, which was granted and certified by the Med-Arbiter. NDGM’s protest was dismissed so NDGM appealed, which was again dismissed for lack of merit. NDGM filed MFR – rejected. CA: staying the holding of the certification election unnecessary, certification election complaints should have been raised before the pre-election conference, where the qualification of voters was already determined. NDGM had no standing to question the qualification of the workers because in the process of choosing the collective bargaining representative, the employer was definitely an intruder Petitioner’s contention: (1)A259, LC5 would allow the staying (suspension) of the holding of certification election, with its appeal of the denial of its Motion. (2) It has the support of all the excluded employees so they could represent these employees and question the validity of the election

ISSUE/S

1. WON the holding of certification elections was stayed by the NDGM’s appeal of the med-arbiter’s notation to the DOLE Secretary on the Motion to Include the probationary and Substitute Employees in the list of Qualified Voters

2. WON the employer has legal personality to question the election

HELD

1. NO. The appeal of the med-arbiter’s January 13, 1992 handwritten notation –pertaining to the incidental matter of the list of voters –should not stay the holding of the certification election. Ratio. Not all the orders issued by a med-arbiter are appealable. In fact, “[i]nter locutory orders issued by the med-arbiter prior to the grant or denial of the petition, including orders granting motions for intervention issued after an order calling for a certification election, shall not be appealable. However, any issue arising there from may be raised in the appeal on the decision granting or denying the petition.”

-The intention of the law is to limit the grounds for appeal that may stay the holding of a certification election. This intent is manifested by the issuance of Department Order No. 40. Under the new rules, an appeal of a med-arbiter’s order to hold a certification election will not stay the holding thereof where the employer company is an unorganized establishment, and where no union has yet been duly recognized or certified as a bargaining representative.

-This new rule, therefore, decreases or limits the appeals that may impede the selection by employees of their bargaining representative. Expediting such selection process advances the primacy of free collective bargaining, in accordance with the State’s policy to “promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining x x x”; and “to ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.”

Reasoning. INTERPRETATION OF A259 OF LC: A259 is supplemented by Section 10 of Rule V of Book Five of the 1992 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Stating that such appeal stays the holding of a certification election, the later provision reads: Sec. 10. Decision of the Secretary final and inappealable.” The Secretary shall have fifteen (15) calendar days within which to decide the appeal from receipt of the records of the case. The filing of the appeal from the decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding of any certification election. The decision of the Secretary shall be final and inappealable.”

-A259 clearly speaks of the “order x x x of the election.” Hence, the Article pertains, not just to any of the med-arbiter’s orders like the subject notation, but to the order granting the petition for certification election. This is an unmistakable inference from a reading of Sections 6 and 7 of the implementing rules6. and spirit of welfare legislations intended to protect labor and to promote social justice.

Disposition.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.