CASE DIGEST: WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION V BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-ANGLO

WARREN MFG WORKERS UNION

VS

BUREAU OF  LABOR RELATIONS, PACIWU, SMWMC-ANGLO  

G.R. No. L-76185

[MARCH 30, 1988]

NATURE

Petition for review on certiorari w/ prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or the issuance of a restraining order seeking to set aside the Order of the Med-Arbiter (ordering cert election); and of the resolution of the Bureau of Labor

FACTS

-June 13, 1985. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU) filed a petition for certification election

-July 7, 1985. Warren Mfg Corp1 filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that there exists a C.B.A. between the Warren Mfg Corp2 and the Warren Mfg. Union (WMWU) w/c took effect on July 16, 1985 and to expire on July 31, 1986.

-PACIWU filed a Notice of Strike and on conciliation meeting, a Returnto-Work Agreement was signed stipulating: “To resolve the issue of union representation at Warren Mfg. Corp. parties have agreed to the holding of a consent election among the rank and file on August 25, 1985 at the premises of the company to be supervised by MOLE . . .”

-August 25, 1985. Consent election was held. WMWU won. PACIWU filed an Election Protest. Election Protest was dismissed.

-June 5, 1986. PACIWU filed a petition for certification election. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Warren Manufacturing Corporation-Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organizations (ANGLOt) also filed.

-Warren Mfg Corp opposed on the grounds that neither petition has 30% support; that both are barred by the one-year no certification election law and the existence of a duly ratified CBA.

-August 18, 1986. Med-Arbiter ordered certification election conducted to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Warren Mfg Corp w/ the ff choices: 1.PACIWU 2. WMWU 3. SMWMC-ANGLO 4. No Union.

-Warren Mfg Corp and WMWU filed separate motions. Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed lack of merit. MMWU filed petition for review on certiorari saying: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining

1 Note: the case said ‘respondent’ pero di ko gets sino ang respondent

sa kwento. So I think lang ang company yun. .

same unit is patently premature and illegal bec of the one-year no certification election rule3 and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule.

ISSUE/S

WON one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule applies

HELD

NO

-The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August 25, 1985 at the Company’s premises and which became the root of this controversy, was a consent election and not a certification election.

-As correctly distinguished by private respondent, a consent election is an agreed one, its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit, while a certification election is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

-From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period.

-It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA at the company until its expiry date on July 31, 1986. It is, therefore, unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25, 1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a collective contract, there being an existing collective bargaining agreement yet to expire on July 31, 1986; but only to determine which labor union shall administer the said existing contract.

Disposition

Petition dismissed.