LABOR LAW 2

Introduction, Right to Self-Organization CONSTITUTION A III.Section 8. - The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. A XIII. Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to: self-organization collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. Tsecurity of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. ARTICLE 211. Declaration of Policy. - A. It is the policy of the State: (a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; (b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development; (c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement; (d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union members and as employees; (e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes; (f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and (g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare. B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code. ARTICLE 212. Definitions. (a) Commission means the National Labor Relations Commission or any of its divisions, as the case may be, as provided under this Code. (b) Bureau means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or the Labor Relations 1 Fermin 2012 Divisions in the regional offices established under Presidential Decree No. 1, in the Department of Labor. (c) Board means the National Conciliation and Mediation Board established under Executive Order No. 126. (d) Council means the Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council established under Executive Order No. 126, as amended. (e) Employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer. (f) Employee includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment. (g) Labor organization means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. (h) Legitimate labor organization means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof. (i) Company union means any labor organization whose formation, function or administration has been assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code. (j) Bargaining representative means a legitimate labor organization whether or not employed by the employer. (k) Unfair labor practice means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code. (l) Labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (m) Managerial employee is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book. (n) Voluntary Arbitrator means any person accredited by the Board as such or any person named or designated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the parties to act as their Voluntary Arbitrator, or one chosen with or without the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any official that may be authorized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment to act as Voluntary Arbitrator upon the written request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute. (o) Strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. (p) Lockout means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. (q) Internal union dispute includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of the constitution and by laws of a

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization union, including any violation of the rights and conditions of union membership provided for in this Code. (r) Strike-breaker means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or collective bargaining. (s) Strike area means the establishment, warehouses, depots, plants or offices, including the sites or premises used as runaway shops, of the employer struck against, as well as the immediate vicinity actually used by picketing strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance to and exit from said establishment. WORKERS PARTICIPATION - PAL v. NLRC G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Negotiations proceeded, however, the parties failed to arrived at terms and conditions which are acceptable to both parties. Meralco, faced with the imminence of a strike, filed an urgent petition praying that the Secretary of Labor assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute and to enjoin the striking employees to go back to work. A series of orders were issued by the Secretary, the last resolving the dispute by granting the following awards to Meralcos employees: that MEWA be consulted before the implementation of any contracting out that would last for 6 months or more; and that MEWA be allowed to have representation in policy and decision making into matters affecting personnel welfare, rights and benefits as well as duties. Allowing MEWAs participation is not an intrusion into the management prerogatives of Meralco. What MEWA demands, and what was granted, is that the union be allowed to participate in policy formulation and decision-making process on the abovementioned matters, as required in Art. 211 (A)(g) of the Labor Code. Participation by MEWA in the aforementioned committees is not in the nature of a co-management control of the business of Meralco. To iterate, what is granted is participation and representation. There is no impairment of management prerogatives.

PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. PALEA) filed a complaint before the (NLRC) for unfair labor practice - that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code must conform with the requirements of sufficient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and prejudicial to the rights of the employees. PAL filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescibe rules and regulations regarding employess' conduct in carrying out their duties and functions and that it didnt violate the CBA. SC upheld Unions Contention - Even in the absence of said clear provision of law, the exercise of management prerogatives was never considered boundless. o So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. In treating the latter, management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes action. PAL asserts that all its employees have been furnished copies of the Code. Public respondents found to the contrary, which finding, to say the least is entitled to great respect.

ARTICLE 243. Coverage and employees right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980). Two Rights: o Right to self organization o Right to form, join, assist a labor organization All persons ma organize for a lawful purpose but not all persons may form labor unions. Granted not only to employees but also to workers whether employed or not ARTICLE 246. Non-abridgment of right to self-organization. It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980). Right Includes o Form, join, assist a labor organization o To engage in lawful converted activities 2

MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. QUISUMBING and MERALCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION (MEWA) G.R. No. 127598 1999 January 27 and 2000 February 22 (MR) MEWA is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of Meralco. It informed Meralco of its intention to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their existing

Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization o Organization does not always have to be a union, it may be an association employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer 1. effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rankand-file employees for purposes of this Book. Managerial power to DECIDE and DO managerial acts 1. to lay down and execute management policies 2. hire, transferm fire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign, discipline employees cannot unionize Supervisory

S.S. VENTURES INTL V. SS VENTURES LABOR UNION G.R. No. 161690July 23, 2008

Ventures filed a Petition to cancel the Union's certificate of registration. To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the application for registration and the supporting documents, such as the adoption or ratification of the constitution and bylaws or amendments thereto and the minutes of ratification of the constitution or by-laws, among other documents. issuance to the Union of Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02-UR-0003 necessarily implies that its application for registration and the supporting documents thereof are prima facie free from any vitiating irregularities. issue surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It is not a ground to cancel union registration. The bare fact that three signatures twice appeared on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel Certificate of Registration No. RO300-00-02- UR-0003. As the Union tenably explained without rebuttal from Ventures, the double entries are no more than "normal human error," effected without malice. Even the labor arbiter who found for Ventures sided with the Union in its explanation on the absence of malice. The cancellation of a union's registration doubtless has an impairing dimension on the right of labor to self-organization.

3. 1.
2. 3.

power to managerial acts

RECOMMEND

not clerical discretionary or judgemental independent effective given a particular weight can unionize

Ineligiility of Managers from forming, joining or assisting labor unions is constitutional BAKER V. TRAJANO G.R. No. 75039 January 28, 1988 Baker Company seeks to exclude 76 employees from participating in a certification election saying they are managerial employees. The test of "supervisory" or "managerial status" depends on whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of the company, the same, although present, are not effective and not an exercise of independent judgment as required by law (National Warehousing Corp). NOT MANAGERIAL - Subject employees are not managerial employees because as borne by the records, they do not participate in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and standard practices to observe, thus having little freedom of action .

ARTICLE 244. Right of employees in the public service. Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986). ARTICLE 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own A212 (m) Managerial employee is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to: 1. lay down and execute management policies and/or 2. to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline 3 Fermin 2012

PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL vs. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 85915 January 17, 1990

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization

Respondent union filed for certification election while a valid CBA exists with PMTI-ULGWF. Company opposed saying they were managerial employees. Petitioner opposed saying they were the sole CBA representative. LA and Bureau of Relations allowed such certification election. SC said that there was no GADALEJ since such employees sought to be represented may have the title of those falling under managerial employees, but in reality they do not really posses the functions of a managerial employe The public respondent, in its factual findings, found that the supervisory employees sought to be represented by the respondent union are not involved in policy-making and their recommendatory powers are not even instantly effective since the same are still subject to review by at least three managerial heads (department manager, personnel manager and general manager) before final action can be taken. Hence, it is evidently settled that the said employees do not possess a managerial status. The fact that their work designations are either managers or supervisors is of no moment considering that it is the nature of their functions and not the said nomenclatures or titles of their jobs which determines their statuses.

MIDDLE MANAGERS The term middle management can refer to more than one level in an organization. Middle managers direct the activities of other managers and sometimes also those of operating employees. Middle managers principal responsibilities are to direct the activities that implement their organizations policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with the capacities of their subordinates. A plant manager in an electronics firm is an example of a middle manager.

TOP MANAGERS Composed of a comparatively small group of executives, top management is responsible for the overall management of the organization. It establishes operating policies and guides the organizations interactions with its environment. Typical titles of top managers are chief executive officer, president, and senior vicepresident. Actual titles vary from one organization to another and are not always a reliable guide to membership in the highest management classification. Distinction between Managers

UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU) V. HON. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 122226 March 25, 1998

o union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. However, its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route managers are managerial employees and, therefore, ineligible for union Yes, route managers are managerial employees the purpose is to meet the sales plan and achieved through the skillfull management of your job and management of your people o we find that only those employees occupying the position of route manager and accounting manager are managerial employees. The rest i.e. quality control manager, yard/transport manager and warehouse operations manager are supervisory employees 3 types of Managers

A distinction exist between those who have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies (top and middle managers) and hose whose task is simply to ensure that such polices are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an organization (first-level managers/supervisors). What distinguishes them from the rank-and file employees is that they act in the interest of the employer in supervising such rank-and-file employees.

Managerial employees may therefore be said to fall into two distinct categories: the managers per se, who compose the former group described above, and the supervisors who form the latter group. Whether they belong to the first or second category, managers, vis--vis employers, are, likewise, employees.

UP vs FERRER CALLEJA G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 UP Personnel (academic and non-academic) wants a certification election to be conducted. UP says no problem but there should be 2 unions representing the collective bargaining unit: one for academic and another for non-academic. Calleja says there is no reason for separate grouping, and therefore, she commanded the holding of a cert. election for one union who shall represent the academic and non-academic personnel. UP says that 3 professorial positions (Associate, Assistant, Full) should be excluded from the rank-and-file employees as they are considered highlevel personnel exercising policy-making functions. T

FIRST-LINE MANAGERS The lowest level in an organization at which individuals are responsible for the work of others is called first-line or firstlevel management. First-line managers direct operating employees only; they do not supervise other managers. Example of first-line managers are the foreman or production supervisor in a manufacturing plant, the technical supervisor in a research department, and the clerical supervisor in a large office. First-level managers are often called supervisors. 4 Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization SC says that these positions are not high-level personnel (thus they are rank in file), however there should be 2 unions representing the unit since there is a dichotomy of interests. o It is the University Academic Personnel Committee, composed of deans, the assistant for academic affairs and the chief of personnel, which formulates the policies, rules and standards respecting selection, compensation and promotion of members of the academic staff. The departmental and college academic personnel committees' functions are purely recommendatory in nature, subject to review and evaluation by the University Academic Personnel Board. o Members of the departmental and college academic personnel committees are "given ready policies to execute and standard practices to observe for their execution, . . . they have little freedom of action, as their main function is merely to carry out the company's orders, plans and policies." o professors through membership in the departmental and college academic personnel committees is that not all professors are members thereof. o Neither can membership in the University Council elevate the professors to the status of high-level employees. Although the University Council (composed of the 3 classes of professors) have the power to prescribe the courses of study and rules of discipline (and among others), it is subject to the approval of the Board of Regents. It is readily apparent that the policy-determining functions of the University Council are subject to review, evaluation and final approval by the Board of Regents. The Council's power of discipline is likewise circumscribed by the limits imposed by the Board of Regents. What has been said about the recommendatory powers of the departmental and college academic personnel committees applies with equal force to the alleged policy-determining functions of the University Council. o The policy-determining functions of the University Council refer to academic matters, i.e. those governing the relationship between the University and its students, and not the University as an employer and the professors as employees. 2) No. They should not be join in a single bargaining unit. o THERE SHOULD BE 2 BARGAINING UNITS basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights' (Rothenberg on Labor Relations, 490)." collective bargaining rights. These special circumstances, i.e., the dichotomy of interests and concerns as well as the dissimilarity in the nature and conditions of work, wages and compensation between the academic and non-academic personnel, bring the case at bar within the exception contemplated in Section 9 of Executive Order No. 180. It was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Relations Director to have ruled otherwise, ignoring plain and patent realities.

SEGREGATION OF RANK-IN-FILE & SUPERVISORS A245 allows supervisory EE ti form, join,or assist separate labor organizations of their own but they are not eligible of membership b labor org of RIF EE; neither may a RIF EE join a supervisors union founded on fairness to the EE and ER themselves as it will be doubtly detrimental to the ER if the supervisors and the RIF as members of only one union could take a common stand against the employer EFFECTS OF MIX MEMBERSHIP Before Amendment by RA 9841 it was ruled that unions with commingled relationship was not a LLO o TOYOTA V. TOYOTA LABOR UNION- There are two types of employees/members of the organization in this case, Level 4 & Level 5 employees. Under the job description for level five employees, such personnel all engineers having a number of personnel under them, not only oversee production of new models but also determine manpower requirements, thereby influencing important hiring decisions at the highest levels. A supervisory employee occupying a level five position would therefore find it difficult to objectively identify the exact manpower requirements dictated by production demands. As respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty-seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five positions, the union could not, prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. o TOYOTA LABOR UNION v. TOYOTA MOTOR -TMPCLU filed an application for certification election but it was dismissed by the MedArbiter because at that time, its membership included supervisory and rank-and file employees. TMPCLU claims that it was a legitimate labor organization because it was already issued a certificate of registration 2 days before it filed its application. The court ruled that TMPCLU could not have acquired legal personality because of the composition of its members was in direct violation of Art. 245 of the Labor Code. TMPCLU had no valid certificate of registration and therefore no legal personality to file the petition for certification election and in the absence of any attempt on its part to rectify the legal infirmity, likewise the disputed Petition-in-Intervention. o SPI TECHNOLOGIES INC. VS. DOLE - private respondent is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a certificate of registration. Under prevailing rules, once a union acquires legitimate 5

the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working conditions of the academic and nonacademic personnel dictate the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the rank-and-file nonacademic personnel, and the second, of the rank-andfile academic employees, is the set-up that will best assure to all the employees the exercise of their

Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization status as a labor organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation.It is worth noting too that Article 245 of the Labor Code relied upon by petitioner merely prescribes the requirements for eligibility in joining a union and does not prescribe the grounds for the cancellation of union registration. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED V. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO- THEU filed for a petition for certification of election which was opposed by THIGCI on the ground that not all the union members are rank-and-file employees. The issue in the case is whether a union with members of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is a legitimate association. The Court held that the union already acquired a certificate of registration. The inclusion in a union of disqualified members is not a ground for the cancellation of the said certificate. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code.THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. The RIF union and supervisors union within the SAME establishment may join the same federation or national union Inclusion as union members as EE outside the bargaining unit shall NOT be a ground for cancellation of the registration of union EE are automatically removed from the list of membership of the said union. Act of 1953 Managerial employees in relation to their employees employer could join a union but not 2) supervisory a union of rank-and-file employees. employees 3) rank-and-file employees Sec. 3 Employees' Right to Self Organization. Employees shall have the right to selforganization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own (Emphasis supplied). Labor Code Employees were re-classified Supervisory employees may not, (1974) into 2 groups: under the law, form a supervisors 1) Managerial union, separate and distinct from the employees existing bargaining unit composed of 2) Rank-and-file rank-and-file employees (Bulletin employees Publishing Corporation vs. Sanchez (1986) Supervisory unions are presently no longer recognized nor allowed to exist and operate as such (Sec. 11, Rule II of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code) Supervisors, who were considered employees in relation to their employer could join a union but not a union of rank-and-file employees. Reason: CONFLICT OF INTEREST.The interest of the supervisors are separate and distinct from the rank-and-file. The functions of the supervisors are recommendatory in nature ad are more identified with the interests of the employer. CLARIFICATION: The Senate bill limited the definition of managerial employees to those having the authority to hire and fire. Hence, those who have the power to recommend the hiring or firing or transfer of personnel were excluded from the definition and are classified into supervisory employees. Supervisory employees are therefore, considered closer to rank6 Fermin 2012 1)

RA 9841

o
o

SUPERCEDED RULINGS ATLAS LITHOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. vs. UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA (

R.A. 6715 (1989) (amending the Labor Code) Art. 245 in particular

Same as the classification in the Industrial Peace Act Defn: Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment (Art. 212(m))

Supervisory employees,belonging to the Administrative, Personnel, Production, Accounting Deparment of the petitioner, Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. (ALSI) were part of a local labor union called SAPPACEA_KAMPIL (supervisors union). The local union came to be affiliated with KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, a national labor organization of rank-and-file employees. KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN, thereafter, filed a petition for certification election so that it could be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit of the supervisory employees of the company. The company opposed this claiming that under Art. 245 of the Labor Code, KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN cannot represent the supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes because it also represents the rank-and-file employees union.

The history of the law on the matter is depicted in the table below: Classification of Employees Answer to the issue at hand Industrial Peace Employees were classified into: Supervisors, who were considered

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization and-file employees SE are also considered rank-and-file employees but are still not allowed to join the R-and-E union. (Senate Journal) Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization: right of supervisory employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. Private respondent is disqualified from affiliating with a national federation of labor organizations which includes the petitioners rank-and-file employees. CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES

Do not constitute a distinct category of employees for purposes of the right to self organize . May attach to managerial, supervisory and even RIF. Those who by the reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employers Privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. Assist in confidential capacity to, or access of confidential matters of persons who exercise managerial functions Execmted from closed-shop provision of CBA and from membership in RIF union.

Here, the R-&-F employees are directly under the supervisors The limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file local union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where, as in the case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK G.R. No. 161933 April 22, 2008

DLSU MEDICAL CENTER AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE vs. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 102084.

Petitioner sought the exclusion of only the ff employees from the appropriate bargaining unit all managers who are vested with the right to hire and fire employees, confidential employees, those with access to labor relations materials, Chief Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and one Human Resources staff. Banks Chief Cahsiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees CE o Bank cashiers, accdg to jurisprudence, are confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters. o Confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as spy or spies of either party to a CBA. o Finally, human resources staff may be qualified as confidential employees because by the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

FFW has local chapters in DLSU for the latters supervisory and rank-and-file employees. FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC, the supervisory chapter, filed for a certification election among the supervisory employees of DLSU. DLSU opposed it stating that FFWDLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company. Although private respondent FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rank-and-file employees of petitioner DLSUMCCM are indeed affiliated with the same national federation, the FFW, petitioner DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory employees. As held inAdamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, the fact that the two groups of workers are employed by the same company and the fact that they are affiliated with a common national federation are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that their organizations are actually just one. Their immediate professional relationship must be established. The fact that the petition for certification election in this case was filed by the FFW on behalf of the local union. This circumstance, while showing active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company, is by itself insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. 245 since there is no proof that the supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the FFW. 7 Fermin 2012

PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC., HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, MED-ARBITER NAPOLEON V. FERNANDO & PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION-UOEF G.R. No. 96663 August 10, 1999

This is a case filed with the Med-Arbiter for Certification Election filed by Pepsi Cola Supervisors Union-UOEF (Union) which was granted. PEPSI (the employer)

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization sought to cancel or revoke the affiliation of the union with a Federation whose members were rank and file unions. The SC ruled that Supervisors Union cannot affiliate with a federation whose members are rank and file unions. It also held that the ineligibility to join, assist or form any labor organization also extends to confidential employees. A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of" the employers. If confidential employees could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by their own motives rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act "in the interest of" the employers. OTHER DOCTRINES: o Republic Act No. 6715, otherwise known as the Herrera-Veloso Law, restored the right of supervisors to form their own unions while maintaining the proscription on the right to self-organization of managerial employees. Accordingly, the Labor Code, as amended, distinguishes managerial, supervisory and rank-and-file employees thus: o Branch Manager is "[t]o discharge his duties and authority with a high sense of responsibility and integrity and shall at all times be guided by prudence like a good father of the family, and sound judgment in accordance with and within the limitations of the policy/policies promulgated by the Board of Directors and implemented by the Management until suspended, superseded, revoked or modified" (par. 5, emphasis supplied). o The job summary of a Controller states: "Supervises the Accounting Unit of the branch; sees to the compliance by the Branch with established procedures, policies, rules and regulations of the Bank and external supervising authorities; sees to the strict implementation of control procedures o The job description of a Cashier does not mention any authority on his part to lay down policies, either. o only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank, being confidential employees, are disqualified from joining or assisting petitioner Union, or joining, assisting or forming any other labor organization. But this ruling should be understood to apply only to the present case based on the evidence of the parties, as well as to those similarly situated. It should not be understood in any way to apply to banks in general.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU)-REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS CHAPTER vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK G.R. No. 93468 December 29, 1994 NATU filed a petition for certification election for a representative of supervisory employees in Republic Planters Bank. Bank filed a MTD alleging that the supervisory employees were managerial/confidential employees ineligible to form unions. Labor Arbiter granted the petition. On appeal, the Sec. of Labor modified the decision and declared that Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers are managerial employees, therefore not allowed to join the union of supervisors.

Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers, Department Managers do not possess the power to lay down policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. They occupy supervisory positions, charged with the duty among others to "recommend proposals to improve and streamline operations." With respect to Assistant Managers, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the finding that they are managerial employees. A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employer's property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. 8

METROLAB INDUSTRIES, INC. v. HON. ROLDAN-CONFESOR GR NO. 108855 February 28, 1996 MII and the Union had several negotiations in the CBA, and as the parties failed to settle their disputes, there has been series of MRs and during the pendency of such MRs, the company MII laid off certain rank and file employees. Labor Secretary Confesor also ruled that executive secretaries are excluded from the closed-shop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit. Hence, this petition. o the shift in constitutional policy toward expanding the right of all workers to self-organization should now be formally by the parties, subject to the following exclusions only:

Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization

1. Managerial employees; and 2. The executive secretaries of the President, Executive Vice-President, Vice-President, Vice-President for Sales, Personnel manager, and Director for Corporate Planning who may have access to vital labor relations information or who may otherwise act in a confidential capacity to persons who determine or formulate management policies. Thus, certain provisions of the CBA should be modified as that of those under the Close Shop Provisions and under the Exclusion from the Scope of the Close Shop Provision those Executive Secretaries in the Bargaining Unit are not covered by Close Shop Provision. MII pointed out that managerial employees are lumped under one classification with executive secretaries, so that since the former are excluded from the bargaining unit, so must the latter be likewise excluded. This reading is obviously contrary to the intent of our 14 April 1992 resolution. By recognizing the expanded scope of the right to selforganization, our intent was to delimit the types of employees excluded from the close shop provision, not from the bargaining unit, to executive secretaries only. Otherwise, the conversion of the exclusionary provision to one that refers to the bargaining unit from one that merely refers to the close shop provision would effectively curtail all the organizational rights of executive secretaries. This Court concur with the position of Metrolab, where the latter maintains that executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager, who are all members of the company's Management Committee should not only be exempted from the closed-shop provision but should be excluded from membership in the bargaining unit of rank and file employees as well on grounds that their executive secretaries are confidential employees, having access to "vital labor information." Forming part of the bargaining unit, the executive secretaries stand to benefit from any agreement executed between the Union and Metrolab. Such a scenario, thus, gives rise to a potential conflict between personal interests and their duty as confidential employees to act for and in behalf of Metrolab. They do not have to be union members to affect or influence either side. Finally, confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. As previously discussed, the nature of employment of confidential employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category. Excluding confidential employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION vs. LAGUESMA AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION G.R. No. 110399 1997 August 15

Union filed before DOLE a Petition for District Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order to conduct a certification among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit. Undersecretary Laguesma, granted SMCs Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter. Upon petitioner-unions motion, Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the 3 plants. Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company arenot managerial, nor confidential employees. o the confidential information handled by questioned employees relate to product formulation, product standards and product specification which by no means relate to labor relations. o Granting that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information but such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the performance of such duties, said access does not render the employee a confidential employee. o If access to confidential labor relations information is to be a factor in the determination of an employees confidential status, such information must relate to the employers labor relations policies. . Access to information which is regarded by the employer to be confidential from the business standpoint, such as financial information or technical trade secrets, will not render an employee a confidential employee. The following are the functions of supervisors 3 and higher: To undertake decisions to discontinue/temporarily stop shift operations when situations require. To effectively oversee the quality control function at the processing lines in the storage of chicken and other products. To administer efficient system of evaluation of products in the outlets. To be directly responsible for the recall, holding and rejection of direct manufacturing materials. To recommend and initiate actions in the maintenance of sanitation and hygiene throughout the plant. SUGBUANON RURAL BANK V. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 116194 February 2, 2000

In the Field of Labor Relations is Important the confidentiality of the position should relate to labor relations matters 9 Fermin 2012

Union filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed by the petioner on the ground that members are managerial and confidential employees. The Court ruled that they are a legitimate union since there is no legal prohibition for confidential employees to join unions.

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization Cashiers, Accountant, and Acting Chief of the Loans Department of the petitioner did not possess managerial powers and duties. We are, therefore, constrained to conclude that they are not managerial employees. Now may the said bank personnel be deemed confidential employees? Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor relations].The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his superior officer; and that officer must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. Art. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union activities. However, under the doctrine of necessary implication, the disqualification of managerial employees equally applies to confidential employees. The confidential-employee rule justifies exclusion of confidential employees because in the normal course of their duties they become aware of management policies relating to labor relations.It must be stressed, however, that when the employee does not have access to confidential labor relations information, there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees from forming, assisting, or joining a union.

members of cooperative cannot join a collective bargaining was based on the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner co-owners."

labor union for purposes of fact that as members of the such, they cannot invoke the right cannot bargain with himself or his

It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. Similarly, members of cooperatives have rights and obligations different from those of stockholders of ordinary corporations. It was precisely because of the special nature of cooperatives, that the Court held in the Davao City case that members-employees thereof cannot form or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS - VICTORIANO V. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION G.R. No. L-25246 (see orig) September 12, 1974

SECURITY GUARDS - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY V. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991 MERALCO questions the decision of the Labor Secretary in allowing their employee security guards from joining the union RA 6715, therefore, insofar as they disqualify security guards from joining a rank and file organization are null and void, for being not germane to the object and purposes of EO 111 and RA 6715 upon which such rules purportedly derive statutory moorings. under RA 6715, they may now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of the supervisory union, depending on their rank. Aquino issued E.O. No. 111 which eliminated the disqualification of security guards. What was retained was the disqualification of managerial employees, renumbered as Art. 245 (previously Art. 246), as follows:

Benjamin Victoriano a member of the religious sect known as the "Iglesia ni Cristo", had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc) since 1958. As such employee, he was a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as Union) which had with the Company a collective bargaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by the Agreement. Appellee presented his resignation to appellant Union in 1962, and when no action was taken thereon, he reiterated his resignation on September 3, 1974. Thereupon, the Union wrote a formal letter to the Company asking the latter to separate Appellee from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the Union as a member. Company assailed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3350; and contended that the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to Republic Act No. 875, Sections 24 and 9 (d) and (e). IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL Right to associate includes the right not to associate - It is clear, therefore, that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is the "right" to join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say that the law also imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee the duty to join associations. The law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any association. Non-impairment of Contracts is not absolute There is no religious test - The Act does not require as a qualification, or condition, for joining any lawful association membership in any particular religion or in any religious sect; neither does the Act require affiliation with a religious sect that prohibits its members from joining a labor union as a condition or

COOPERATIVES - BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE vs. PURA FERRERCALLEJA G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989 BELU won as sole collective bargaining union. However Benguet Electric Cooperative insists that only non-members of the cooperative can validly join and vote since members of the cooperative are owners themselves.

The Court had stated that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co owner thereof. 10 Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization qualification for withdrawing from a labor union. Joining or withdrawing from a labor union requires a positive act. Republic Act No. 3350 only exempts members with such religious affiliation from the coverage of closed shop agreements. So, under this Act, a religious objector is not required to do a positive act to exercise the right to join or to resign from the union. He is exempted ipso jure without need of any positive act on his part. A conscientious religious objector need not perform a positive act or exercise the right of resigning from the labor union he is exempted from the coverage of any closed shop agreement that a labor union may have entered into. How then can there be a religious test required for the exercise of a right when no right need be exercised? KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIV. V. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 82914 June 20, 1988 Tupas had a CBA with URC which is about to expire. NEW ULO, a union composed mainly of Iglesia Ni Cristo members, wants a certification election to be conducted. Med-Arbiter and the BLR director allowed the conduct of cert. elections even though the Iglesia ni Cristo members refused to affiliate with any union for 3 years the CBA of Tupas is in effect. The SC said that Iglesia Ni Cristo members is not prohibited from forming their own union even if joining a labor union is contrary to their beliefs. o "recognition of the tenets of the sect ... should not infringe on the basic right of self-organization granted by the constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation." o ULO, to challenge TUPAS' claim to majority status, by filing a timely petition for certification election on October 13, 1987 before TUPAS' old CBA expired on November 15, 1987 and before it signed a new CBA with the company on December 3, 1987 Petitioners are teachers from different public schools in Metro Manila. On various dates in September and October 1990, petitioners did not report for work and instead, participated in mass actions by public school teachers at the Liwasang Bonifacio for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of their grievances. The mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers' sworn duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons. The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages for any purpose. suspension of public services, however temporary, will inevitably derail services to the public, which is one of the reasons why the right to strike is denied government employees. It may be conceded that the petitioners had valid grievances and noble intentions in staging the "mass actions," but that will not justify their absences to the prejudice of innocent school children. Their righteous indignation does not legalize an illegal work stoppage.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS No CBA may be conducted in an IO w/c the RP has granted immunity from local jurisidiction The grant of such immunity is a political question whose resolution by the Exec Branch of the Government is conclusive upon the Courts INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. FERRER-CALLEJA G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990 ICMC and IRRI are specialized agencies endowed with certain immunities such as from any form of legal process. TUPAS and Kapisanan filed their respective applications for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of ICMC and IRRI, but these were disallowed by the BLR. The Court ruled that the grant of immunity was necessary to avoid partiality by the host country. A certification alone is not an isolated process because it could trigger a series of events that would leave to court litigation. o The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions. o ICMC's and IRRI's immunity from local jurisdiction by no means deprives labor of its basic rights, which are guaranteed by Article II, Section 18, 14 Article III, Section 8, 15 and Article XIII, Section 3,

ARTICLE 244. Right of employees in the public service. Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law. Government employees may organize, unionize and may negotiate CAN ad MOA with their employers. Their orgs needs to be registered with CSC and DOLE EO 180 government employees all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agenciesof the government including GOCCs with original charters from congress o Excluded: AFP, PNP, Firemen and jail guards High level employees doing the policy making managerial or confidential duties not allowed to join RIF orgs CANNOT STRIKE ACOSTA VS. CA G.R. No. 132088. June 28, 2000 11 Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization of the 1987 Constitution; and implemented by Articles 243 and 246 of the Labor Code, relied on by the BLR Director and by Kapisanan. For, ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled; the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. A certification election cannot be viewed as an independent or isolated process. It could trigger off a series of events in the collective bargaining process together with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could inevitably involve ICMC in the "legal process," which includes "any penal, civil and administrative proceedings." The eventuality of Court litigation is neither remote and from which international organizations are precisely shielded to safeguard them from the disruption of their functions. Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of international Organizations. "The immunity covers the organization concerned, its property and its assets. It is equally applicable to proceedings in personam and proceedings in rem." Article 277 (c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union Article 248 Unlawful (e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent; Acquisition and Retention of Membership: Union Security Agreements Union Security Clause any form of agreement w/c imposes upon employees the abligation to acquire or retain union membership at the expense of their employement if they fail to do so o Objective: continued existence of the union through enforced membership. o Exceptions: Bonafide member of religious org w/c prohibits membership EE already in service and already mebers of union other than the majority at the time the closedpshop agreement took effect By express agreement Confidential employees Guidelines: o Binding absent the awareness of EE of such agreement.

o
o

ARTICLE 243. Coverage and employees right to self-organization. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS v. LAGUESMA G.R. No. 119675 November 21, 1996 Petitioner union seeks to annul the resolution rendered by Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma. The resolution dismissed the petitioners petition for certification election for lack of merit considering that no EER exists between the Bank and the employees who are included in the proposed bargaining unit. The question of EER is the primary question that must be asked before extending labor benefits. The EER is a condition sine qua non for the recognition of the employees as a bargaining unit. Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the union members and the employers affects the legality of the union itself. No, the additional documents should not be admitted. While the rules on procedure need not be strictly enforced, the main reason of the court for the rejection of the documents was because the documents were self-serving and did not bear the approval of the employer. The court held that the rejection was based on sound reason. 12

o
o o

Should be strictly construed; there should be clear abd unequivocal statement that loss of good standing in the union would cause dismissal. Employer must observe due process; ample opportunity to defend himself Subject to the application of FREEDOM PERIOD

LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS EMPLOYEES V. LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS. INC. G.R. Nos. 58768-70 DECEMBER 29, 1989 Evaristo and Biascan disaffiliated themselves from PLAC, the company union. Consequently, they were terminated by the corporation pursuant to the union shop clause imposing membership as a condition for continued employment of workers. The Court upheld the validity of the termination and emphasized the policy of the State to promote unionism.

Fermin 2012

LABOR LAW 2
Introduction, Right to Self-Organization o o o Evaristo and Biascan disaffiliated from PLAC as early as March 1975 and thus rendered themselves subject to dismissal under the union shop clause in the CBA. The union shop clause was validly enforced against them and justified the termination of their services. It is the policy of the State to promote unionism to enable the workers to negotiate with management on the same level and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and independently bargain for the improvement of their respective conditions. To this end, the Constitution guarantees to them the rights "to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted actions including the right to strike in accordance with law." There is no question that these purposes could be thwarted if every worker were to choose to go his own separate way instead of joining his co-employees in planning collective action and presenting a united front when they sit down to bargain with their employers. It is for this reason that the law has sanctioned stipulations for the union shop and the closed shop as a means of encouraging the workers to join and support the labor union of their own choice as their representative in the negotiation of their demands and the protection of their interest vis-a-vis the employer. o OTHER DOCTRINE

The closed shop agreement is inapplicable to: those already in the service who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i.e., that the employee in a company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority union or contracting union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing Also, a petition for certification election, whenever there is a reasonable doubt as to who the employees have chosen as their representative, will also become useless because the majority union will eventually become a perpetual labor union. This was not the intention of Congress. (Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al vs. Cir, et al. (1961))

MANILA CORDAGE COMPANY vs. CIR and MANILA CORDAGE WORKERS UNION G.R. No. L-27079 August 31, 1977 members of the Manco Labor Union transferred to Manila Cordage Workers Union. As a result, they were dismissed from their jobs. The dismissed employees filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) case against Manila Cordage and Manco Labor Union. Manila Cordage argued that they validly dismissed the employees pursuant to a maintenance-of-membership provision in the CBA. The SC ruled otherwise because the CBA provision did not qualify as a maintenance-of-membership provision. o the stipulation to this effect must be so clear as to leave no room for doubt thereon An undertaking of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly construed and doubts must be resolved against the existence of the right to dismiss. o maintenance-of-membership provision is one which requires all employees who are already members of the union at the time the provision takes effect to remain such members during the life thereof -is a condition of continued employment.

SANTOS-JUAT vs. CIR, BULAKLAK PUBLICATIONS and JUAN EVANGELISTA G.R. No. L-20764 November 29, 1965 collective bargaining agreement contained a closed-shop agreement which required employees to join the labor union. Employee was dismissed from service due to his refusal to return to work after having been suspended due to his refusal to join the labor union. The court held that the closed shop agreement was valid as a form of union security. the closed shop proviso in the collective bargaining agreement applies o requirement for employees or workers to become members of a union as a condition for employment redounds to the benefit and advantage of said employees because by holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop the union wields group solidarity. In fact, it is said that "the closed-shop contract is the most prized achievement of unionism". o the old employees or workers can be obliged by his employer to join the labor union which had entered into a collective bargaining agreement that provides for a closed-shop as a condition for his continuance in his employment, otherwise his refusal to join the contracting labor union would constitute a justifiable basis for his dismissal. Petitioner Santos-Juat was an old employee (since 1953) but was not a member of any labor union at the time when the collective bargaining agreement in question was entered into (December 1, 1959 and amended on December 27, 1960). Therefore, he can be obliged to join the union as a condition for the continuance of his employment. 13 Fermin 2012