Scribd
Upload
84 views2 pages

11 Eastland Mfg. vs. Noriel - DIG

1. Eastland Manufacturing Company had 275 employees, 175 of whom were members of the respondent union. The union petitioned for a certification election. 2. The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations ordered the election over Eastland's objections that there were not enough supporting employees. 3. The court upheld the Director's decision, finding that all employees, including those with less than one year of service, should have the opportunity to participate in selecting the collective bargaining representative.

Uploaded by

bananayellowsharpie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
84 views2 pages

11 Eastland Mfg. vs. Noriel - DIG

1. Eastland Manufacturing Company had 275 employees, 175 of whom were members of the respondent union. The union petitioned for a certification election. 2. The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations ordered the election over Eastland's objections that there were not enough supporting employees. 3. The court upheld the Director's decision, finding that all employees, including those with less than one year of service, should have the opportunity to participate in selecting the collective bargaining representative.

Uploaded by

bananayellowsharpie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EASTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

, PETITIONER,
VS. HONORABLE CARMELO C. NORIEL AND PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNIONS-PSSLU
FED.- (TUCP) (PSSLU EASTLAND LOCAL), RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. L-45528. February 10, 1982

FACTS:

Petitioner Eastland Manufacturing Company had 275 people in its labor force of whom 175 were
members of respondent Philippine Social Security Labor Unions. They signed a petition for the holding
of a certification election where it was alleged, however, that there were 43 employees with less than
six months service and 6 who had left their employment. Even then there would still be more than
30% of the employees whose votes certainly should be counted.

The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations ruled in favor of respondent union and ordered a
certification election.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. WON the requirement that 30% (of all employees in the bargaining unit) consent requirement
should be complied with for a petition for certification election to be ordered
2. WON employees who were employed for a period for less than one year are entitled to vote
in the certification election

RULING:

1. NO.

The Court had previously held that even if there were less than 30% of the employees asking
for a certification election, that of itself would not be a bar to respondent Director ordering
such an election provided, of course, there is no abuse of discretion.

There is no other more appropriate procedure to enable the labor to determine which of the
competing organizations should represent it for the purpose of a collective bargaining
contract.

The Bureau of Labor Relations is entrusted with the right to order a certification election
precisely for the purpose of ascertaining, which, among several union, shall be the exclusive
collective bargaining representative. That was why not only petitioner but also the Philippine
Federation of Labor, the National Labor Union, the National Federation of Labor Unions and
the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa AG&P were included in the list of labor unions
that could be voted on.
2. YES.

The one-year period required for purposes of membership in the labor union is another thing,
different from the question of entitlement to participate in a certification election.

It has been settled by the Court that for the integrity of the collective bargaining process to
be maintained and thus manifest steadfast adherence to the concept of industrial democracy,
all the workers of a collective bargaining unit should be given the opportunity to participate
in a certification election. This Court has resolutely set its face against any attempt that may
frustrate the above statutory policy.

Thus, all employees can participate. It is equally important that not only some of the
employees but all of them should have the right to make known who shall have the right to
represent them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order is hereby lifted.
This decision is immediately executory, and the certification election can take place forthwith.

You might also like