Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

GR 178409, June 8, 2011

Facts:

The negotiations for the CBA between the Union and the Company reached a deadlock and led to the filing of the Union for a notice of strike. After the holding of a strike was enjoined by the DOLE, the Union filed a second notice of strike, alleging that the Company committed unfair labor practice. The Company sent first and second notices to the Union officers for intentional acts of slowdown and to inform them of their termination from work, respectively. The third notice of strike filed by the Union alleged that the Company had engaged in union busting and illegal dismissal of Union officers.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of all 17 Union officers was justified

Held: No, it was not.

A distinction exists between the ordinary workers’ liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike.

But, the participation of the union officers has to be properly established. The CA held that the Company illegally terminated some union officers, there being no substantial evidence that would connect them to the slowdown.

In termination cases, the dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges against him. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the employee’s dismissal was for just cause. The employer’s failure to do so means that the dismissal was not justified.¹⁶ Here, the company failed to show that all 17 union officers deserved to be dismissed.

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.