Cruzvale vs. Laguesma

Cruzvale, Inc. vs. Laguesma
GR No. 107610, November 25, 1994

Facts:
Union of Filipino Workers (UFW) filed a petition for certification election (CE) among the rank-and-file workers of Cruzvale. Cruzvale sought for the denial of such petition, alleging among other things, that the Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction over the petition since Cruzvale's place of business is at Cubao, Quezon City, which is under the National Capital Region-DOLE's jurisdiction. Petitioner's basis is Section 1, Rule V, book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which states:

Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.

Issue:
Whether the venue of the petition for CE must be where it would be convenient for the worker

Held: Yes, it must.
The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case.

The mentioned provision refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for certification election is filed. It does not apply where the place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different regional offices. The Court assumes that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact that there are many companies with factories located in places different from places where the corporate offices are located.

The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience of the worker.

Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission prescribes that all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch office which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules defines the workplace as follows:

For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . .

National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. Secretary of Labor

National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. Secretary of Labor
GR No. 106446, November 16, 1993

Facts:
NAMAWU-MIF is the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of Quality Container Corporation (QCC). 38 days before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between NAMAWU-MIF and QCC, Federation of Free Workers-Samahang Mangagawa sa Quality Container Corporation (FFW-SMQCC) filed a petition for certification election (CE).

Attached to the original petition for CE was a list of 141 supporting signature out of the 300 employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by FFW-SMQCC. QCC sought to delete from the list some 36 signature which were allegedly forged and falsified. NAMAWU-MIFF likewise submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the signatures therein.

Issue:

Whether employees' refusal to be represented dispenses with the need for a CE

Held: No, it does not.

If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refused to be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC, with all the more reason should a certification election be held where the employees themselves can freely and voluntarily express by secret ballot their choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most effective and expeditious way to determine which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company.

George & Peter Lines, Inc. vs. Associated Labor Unions (ALU)

George & Peter Lines, Inc. vs. Associated Labor Unions (ALU)
GR No. L-51602, January 17, 1985

Facts:
ALU filed for a petition for Direct Certification, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all rank and file employees of G&PL.
G&PL opposed the petition stating that ALU does not represent the majority of the employees concerned, especially in the light of the claim of more than 80% of the licensed and unlicensed crew of its vessels that they are not members of any union and have no desire to join any.
The Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of G&PL employees.
G&PL moved for reconsideration alleging that a certification election (CE) should be called for the interest of fairness and justice.

Issue:
Whether a direct certification would suffice to prove the alleged majority representation status of a union

Held: No, it would not suffice.
Certification election is the best and most appropriate means of ascertaining the will of the employees as to their choice of an exclusive bargaining representative. That there are no competing Unions involved should not alter that principle, the freedom of choice by the employees being the primordial consideration besides the fact that the employees can still choose between ALU and No Union. Even if the withdrawals of the employees concerned were submitted after the Petition for direct certification had been filed, the doubt as to the majority representation of the Union has arisen and it is best to determine the true sentiment of the employees through a certification election.

Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) vs. Secretary of Labor

Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) vs. Secretary of Labor
GR No. 107792, March 2, 1998

Facts:
The employees of Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation voted "No Union" during the January 15, 1991 certification election (CE).
On March 11, 1991, the SMP, which is composed of some employees of Permex Producer, was registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On August 16, 1991, SMP requested Permex Producer to recognize SMP as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of Permex Producer.
On October 19, 1991, Permex Producer recognized SMP, and because of such recognition, Permex entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with SMP on December 1, 1991. The CBA was ratified on December 9 & 10, 1991 by the majority of the rank and file employees of Permex. On December 13, 1991, such CBA was certified by the DOLE.
On February 25, 1992, the National Labor Federation (NFL) filed a petition for CE, but was dismissed. NFL's appeal led to its inclusion in the options for CE. SMP moved for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether support by the majority of the employees makes a CBA entered by a union valid and binding

Held: No, it does not.

It is not enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees. It is equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given the opportunity to express himself.

This is especially so because, in this case, the recognition given to the union came barely ten (10) months after the employees had voted "no union" in the certification election conducted in the company. As pointed out by respondent Secretary of Labor in his decision, there can be no determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the proclamation of the results of the certification election. Here the results, which showed that 61% of the employees voted for "no union," were certified only on February 25, 1991 but on December 1, 1991 Permex Producer already recognized the union and entered into a CBA with it.

Algire vs. De Mesa

Algire vs. De Mesa
GR No. 97622, October 19, 1994

Facts:
Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU) filed a petition for the holding of an election of union officers to represent the union in the collective bargaining agreement with the management of Universal robina Textile. the employees were to choose between Algire, et al. and de Mesa et al.

Issue:
Whether the election held was a consent election

Held: Yes, it was.
The election held on November 15, 1990 was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election.