CASE DIGEST: ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION V. SECRETARY OF LABOR

ORIENTAL TIN CAN LABOR UNION

VS

SECRETARY OF LABOR

294 SCRA 640

[ August 28, 1998]

FACTS

-Company entered into CBA with OTCLU (Oriental Tin Can Labor Union). -248 rank and file workers FFW to file a petition for certification election. However, this petition was repudiated by waiver of 115 signatories who ratified the new CBA.

-OTCWU-FFW filed petition for certification election, accompanied by “authentic signatures” of 25% of employees.

-OTCLU filed motion for dismissal of the petition for certification election. It said the petition was not endorsed by at least 25% as some of the employees allegedly withdrew their support.

-Company filed comment alleging that the new CBA was already ratified.

-OTCWU-FFW filed a reply, alleging that the employer has no legal personality to oppose petition for certification election.

-DOLE issued certificate of registration of the CBA. It showed that the CBA between the OTCLU and the company has the force and effect of law.

-OTCWU-FFW officers walked out of their jobs. The union filed notice of strike with NCMB.grounded on alleged dismissal of union members/officers. Company directed the officers to return to work. None of them did.

-Med-arbiter dismissed petition for certification election.

-OTCWU-FFW appealed to Sec of Labor. Pending appeal, they staged a strike. They prevented free ingress and egress of non-striking employees, and vehicles. NLRC issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

-Labor Usec issued resolution granting the appeal and setting aside the order of Med-arbiter.

-After denial of their MFR, the company and OTCLU filed petitions for certiorari before SC.

ISSUE/S

1. WON the employer can challenge petitions for certification election

2. WON the DOLE correctly granted the petition for certification election

3. WON it is proper to dismiss a petition for certification election because a new CBA has already been ratified.

4. WON the 25% support requirement has been met in this case

HELD

1. NO

-Certification elections are exclusively the concern of employees; hence, the employer lacks the legal personality to challenge the same.

-The only instance when an employer may concern itself with employee representation activities is when it has to file the petition for certification election because there is no existing CBA in the unit and it was requested to bargain collectively, pursuant to Article 258 of Labor Code. After filing the petition, the role of the employer ceases and it becomes a mere bystander. Company’s interference in the certification election below by actively opposing the same is manifestly uncalled-for and unduly creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union.

2. YES

-Since question of right of representation as between competing labor organizations in a bargaining unit is imbued with public interest, law governs the choice of a collective bargaining representative which shall be the duly certified agent of the employees concerned. An official certification becomes necessary where the bargaining agent fails to present adequate and reasonable proof of its majority authorization and where the employer demands it, or when the employer honestly doubts the majority representation of several contending bargaining groups. IArticle 255 of the Labor Code allows the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit to designate or select the labor organization which shall be their exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.

-The designation or selection of the bargaining representative without, however, going through the process set out by law for the conduct of a certification election applies only when representation is not in issue. There is no problem if a union is unanimously chosen by a majority of the employees as their bargaining representative, but a question of representation arising from the presence of more than one union in a bargaining unit aspiring to be the employees’ representative, can only be resolved by holding a certification election under the supervision of the proper government authority.

3. NO

-Petition for certification election was filed 28 days before expiration of existing CBA, well within 60-day period provided for.

-Filing of petition for certification election during 60-day freedom period gives rise to a representation case that must be resolved even though a new CBA has been entered into within that period. This is clearly provided for in the aforequoted Section 4, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The reason behind this rule is obvious. A petition for certification election is not necessary where the employees are one in their choice of a representative in the bargaining process. Moreover, said provision manifests the intent of the legislative authority to allow, if not encourage, the contending unions in a bargaining unit to hold a certification election during the freedom period.

4. YES

-The support requirement is a mere technicality which should be employed in determining the true will of the workers instead of frustrating the same.

-All doubts as to the number of employees actually supporting the holding of a certification election should, therefore, be resolved by going through such procedure. It is judicially settled that a certification election is the most effective and expeditious means of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit.