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.