EXPIRED CBA
Colegio de San Juan De Letran v. Assn. of Employees and
Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587
[G.R. No. 141471, Sept. 18, 2000]
FACTS:
Salvador Abtria, President of respondent union-initiated renegotiations of its CBA with
petitioner for the last two years of CBA’s 5 years lifetime from 1989-1994. On the same year, the
union elected a new set of officers with private respondents Eleanor Ambas as the newly
elected President. Ambas wanted to continue renegotiation, but petitioner claimed that the CBA
was already prepared for signing. The CBA was submitted to a referendum which was rejected
by the union members. Later, the union notified the NCMB of its intention to strike due to
petitioners, refusal to bargain. Thereafter, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and
to start negotiation on a new five-year CBA. The union submitted its proposals to petitioner,
which notified the union that the same was submitted to its Board of Trustees. Meanwhile,
Ambas work schedule was changed, which she protested and requested to be submitted to
grievance machinery under the old CBA. Due to petitioners’ inaction, the union filed a notice of
strike. Later, the Ambas was dismissed for alleged insubordination. Both parties again
discussed the ground rules for the CBA renegotiations; however petitioner stopped negotiations
after allegedly receiving information that a new group of employees had filed a PCE. The union
struck and the Secretary assumed jurisdiction ordering all striking workers to return to work.
All were readmitted except Ambas. Public respondent declared petitioner quilt of ULP and
directed reinstatement of Ambas with back wages.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Colegio de San Juan De Letran is guilty of unfair labor practice by
refusing to bargain within the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing
negotiations for a new CBA upon mere information that a petition for certification has
been filed by another legitimate labor organization.
2) Whether or not the termination of the union president amounts to an interference of the
employees’ right to self –organization.
HELD:
1. No. the duty to bargain collectively includes the mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
Petitioner failed to make a timely reply to the unions proposals, thereby violating the
proper procedure in collective bargaining as provided in Article 250. In order to allow
the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process, there must be a valid PCE
raising a legitimate representation issue, in this case, the petition was filed outside the
60-dayt freedom period; therefore there was no legitimate representation issue and the
filing of the PCE did not constitute to the ongoing negotiation.
2. Yes, the dismissal was in violation of the employee’s right to self- organization. The
dismissal must be made pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play wherein the
employers right to terminate the services of an employee must be exercised in good
faith, furthermore, it must not amount to interfering with, restraining, or coercing,
employees in their right to self- organization. The factual backdrop of the Ambas
termination reveals that such was done in order to strip the union of the leader;
admittedly management has the prerogative to discipline its employees for
insubordination. But when the exercise of such management right tends to interfere whit
the employees right to self- organization, it amounts to union- busting and is therefore a
prohibited act.
SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Prejudicial Question Rule
● United CMC textile Workers Union v. BLR, 128 SCRA 316
[G.R. No. L-51337, March 22, 1984]
FACTS:
Petitioner United CMC Textile Workers Union is the incumbent collective bargaining
representative of all rank-and-file workers of CENTEX since 1956. Respondent PAFLU is also a
union seeking representation as the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file workers. Petitioner
filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against CENTEX and PAFLU alleging that CENTEX
had “helped and cooperated in the organization of the Central Textile Mills, Inc. Local PAFLU
by allowing the organizing members of the PAFLU to solicit signatures of employees of the
company who are members of the complainant union to disaffiliate from complainant union
and join the respondent PAFLU, during company time and inside the company premises on
August 21, 1978 and the following days thereafter. While the ULP Case was pending, PAFLU
filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file workers of CENTEX, alleging
that: 1) there has been no certification election during the 12 months period prior to the filing of
the petition; 2) the petition is supported by signatures of 603 workers, or more than 30% of the
rank and file workers of CENTEX; 3) the collective bargaining agreement between CENTEX and
petitioner will expire on October 31, 1978; 4) the petition is filed within the 60-day-freedom-
period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA, and 6) there is no legal impediment to
the filing of the petition. Petitioner intervened in the Certification Case and filed a Motion to
Dismiss on September 27, 1978 on the grounds that: 1) the ULP Case charging that PAFLU is a
company-dominated union is a prejudicial question and bars the holding of the certification
election; and 2) PAFLU failed to comply with the 30% requirement for mandatory certification
election since only 440 of the 603 are valid signatures and that 719 signatories are required as
constitutive of 30% of the rank and file workers totaling 2,397 and not 1,900 as alleged by
PAFLU. The Med-Arbiter issued an Order for the holding of a certification election among
CENTEX rank and file workers, whereby qualified voters could choose either PAFLU or
petitioner as the collective bargaining representative or No Union at all. This was affirmed by
respondent Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on appeal, in the challenged Resolution,
dated May 25, 1979, stating that: 1) the Bureau has discretion to order certification election
where several unions are contending for representation and when there is doubt as to whether
the 30% requirement has been met; and 2) to preclude the filing of a petition for certification
election the notice of strike for deadlock in CBA negotiations must occur prior to the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the pendency of the ULP Case charging a participating union in the certification
election proceedings as company-dominated is a prejudicial question to the conduct of the
election.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held the pendency of a formal charge of company domination is a prejudicial
question that, until decided, bars proceedings for a certification election, the reason being that
the votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free. "There is no assertion that
the complaint was flimsy or made in bad faith or filed purposely to forestall the certification
election. So, no reason existed for the Industrial Court to depart from its established practice of
suspending the election proceeding.
The Court also ruled by citing the following jurisprudence:
o Manila Paper Mills Employees v. Court of Industrial Relations, 104 Phil. 10: In the words
of Mr. Justice Montemayor, ‘if there is a union dominated by the company, to which
some of the workers belong, an election among workers and employees of the company
would not reflect the true sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees
because the votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free.’
The opposition to the holding of a certification election due to a charge of company
domination can only be filed and maintained by the labor organization which made the
charge of company domination, because it is the entity that stands to lose and suffer
prejudice by the certification election, the reason being that its members might be
overwhelmed in the voting by the other members controlled and dominated by the
Company,’. There would be an impairment of the integrity of the collective bargaining
process if a company-dominated union were allowed to participate in a certification
election. The timid, the timorous, and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could easily
be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of management. Should it emerge
victorious, and it becomes the exclusive representative of labor at the conference table,
there is a frustration of the statutory scheme. It takes two to bargain. There would be
instead a unilateral imposition by the employer. There is need therefore to inquire as to
whether a labor organization that aspires to be the exclusive bargaining representative is
company-dominated before the certification election."
o Standard Cigarette Workers’ Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 101 Phil. 126) – In
the language of Justice J.B.L. Reyes as ponente: `As correctly pointed out by Judge
Lanting in his dissenting opinion on the denial of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, a complaint for unfair labor practice may be considered a prejudicial
question in a proceeding for certification election when it is charged therein that one or
more labor unions participating in the election are being aided, or are controlled, by the
company or employer. The reason is that the certification election may lead to the
selection of an employer-dominated or company union as the employees’ bargaining
representative, and when the court finds that said union is employer-dominated in the
unfair labor practice case, the union selected would be decertified and the whole election
proceedings would be rendered useless and nugatory.’
Party and Issue
● Barrera v. CIR, 107 SCRA 596
[G.R. No. L-32853, Sept. 25, 1981]
FACTS:
On September 22, 1970, Barrera, doing business under the firm and trade name of Machinery
and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), was alleging an unfair labor practice against MASPE
Workers Union. The unfair labor practice imputed to such labor union consisted of failure to
bargain collectively, aggravated by an illegal strike. In the charge of unfair labor practice among
the reliefs prayed for were to declare respondents therein collectively and individually guilty of
unfair labor practice; to declare the strike, and other concerted actions resorted to in pursuance
of said unfair labor practice illegal.
Because of this, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance MASPE Workers Union
and Philippine Associated Workers’ Union’s certification election. The Court of Industrial
Relations denied such a motion to dismiss, stating that the grounds therein alleged "appear not
to be indubitable." CIR pointed out that unless the case for unfair labor practice against MASPE
Workers Union, its officers and members is decided, the status of that union and its members
who are respondents would be uncertain (i.e., in relation to the requested certification election
and the outcome thereof). The Motion for Reconsideration was also dismissed, leading to this
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a pending certification election proceeding may be dismissed or held in
abeyance, considering that the employer Juan S. Barrera, doing business under the firm and
trade name of MASPE is alleged of unfair labor practice against MASPE Workers Union.
HELD:
No. The pending certification election proceeding cannot be dismissed or held in abeyance in
this case.
The Court stated that the postponement of a certification election pending an inquiry, as to the
bona fides of a labor union, precisely calls for a different conclusion. If under the circumstances
disclosed, management is allowed to have its way, the result might be to dilute or fritter away
the strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. The
difficulties and obstacles that must be then hurdled would not be lost on the rest of the
personnel who had not yet made up their minds one way or the other. This is not to say that
management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor practice case. It is merely to stress
that such a suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means, whether intended or not, to
prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization that will
represent it. It is not only the loss of time involved, in itself not likely to enhance the prospect of
respondent-unions, but also the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that
management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of its undeniable power
against those of its employees dissatisfied with things as they are. This is one instance that calls
for the application of the maxim, lex dilationes semper exhorret (the law abhors delay).
Moreover, is there not in the posture taken by petitioner a contravention of what is expressly set
forth in the Industrial Peace Act, which speaks of the labor organizations 'designated or selected
for the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit [be the exclusive] representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining.' The law clearly contemplates all the employees, not only
some of them. As much as possible then, there is to be no unwarranted reduction in the number
of those taking part in a certification election, even under the guise that in the meanwhile,
which may take some time, some of those who are employees could possibly lose such status,
by virtue of a pending unfair labor practice case."
Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike and the picketing were
attended by violence, it does not automatically follow that thereby the strikers in question are
no longer entitled to participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their
jobs.
