FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 113204-05.
BARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR NG BARBIZON PHILIPPINES, INC.-NAFLU AND THE HON. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside and annul the decision and
orders of the public respondent dated
The facts which gave rise to the present petition are as follows:
On
In one of the pre-election conferences, PHILIPPINE LINGERIE WORKERS UNION-ALAB moved for the exclusion of a number of employees who were allegedly holding supervisory positions.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated
SO ORDERED.[1]
PHILIPPINE LINGERIE WORKERS UNION-ALAB filed two (2) separate motions for reconsideration of the above order which were consolidated and treated in an Order dated 22 December 1988, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the twin motions for reconsideration are hereby deemed denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, let the pre-election conference preparatory to the certification election proceed without further delay.
No further motion of similar nature shall be hereafter entertained.
SO ORDERED.[2]
No further appeal of the above-quoted order was interposed, thus it became final and executory.
On
1.Philippine Lingerie Workers
2.Buklod Ng Manggagawa Ng Philippine
Lingerie Corporation- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 412 votes
3.No Union- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 votes
4.Challenged Supervisors/Confidential
Employees- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99 votes
_________
TOTAL VALID VOTES CAST- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -855 votes
SPOILED BALLOTS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 votes
PHILIPPINE LINGERIE WORKERS UNION-ALAB filed an election protest
which was later formalized on
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the protest and challenged (sic) of the Alyansang Likha Ng Mga Anak Ng Bayan (ALAB) are hereby denied for lack of merit.
Accordingly, let the challenged votes of the supervisors and confidential employees be opened in the presence of the parties under the supervision of the Labor Organization Division (LOD) on 26 July 1989 at 9:00 A.M., Bureau of Labor Relations.
SO ORDERED.[3]
With the above-quoted order, the challenged votes were opened on
Philippine Lingerie Workers
Buklod Ng Manggagawa Ng Phil. Lingerie
Corp.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 84 votes
No Union- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 votes
Spoiled - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 votes
TOTAL VOTES CAST- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --99 votes
PHILIPPINE LINGERIE WORKERS UNION-ALAB filed a motion for
reconsideration of the BLR’s Order of
xxx xxx xxx
This time movant should now be convinced that the alleged supervisory and confidential employees are more rank-and-file employees.
As early as Resolution dated
xxx
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied and the Buklod Ng Manggagawa Ng Philippine Lingerie Corporation (now, Barbizon Philippines, Inc.) is hereby certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Philippine Lingerie Corporation).
The management of Barbizon Philippines, Inc. is hereby directed to immediately start negotiating for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the said union.
No further motion of any nature shall hereinafter be entertained by this Office.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Not satisfied with the aforequoted order, PHILIPPINE LINGERIE
WORKERS UNION-ALAB appealed to the Secretary of Labor but on
A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was signed by petitioner
and BUKLOD which was effective for five (5) years or until
While the CBA was still in force, several employees organized themselves into the Nagkakaisang Supervisors Ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees Ng Barbizon, Philippines, Inc. (NEMPEBPI) allegedly because they were excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA between petitioner and BUKLOD.
Two (2) separate petitions for certification election were filed
by NSBPI and NEMPEBPI. The petition of
the former was raffled to Med-Arbiter
Renato D. Parungo and the latter to Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap. Both cases were dismissed.[6]
NSBPI appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor. On
On
WHEREFORE the Motion for Reconsideration of Nagkakaisang Superbisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the appeal of Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NEMPEBPI) are hereby granted and the Orders of this Office and the Med-Arbiter dated 29 December 1992 and 01 September 1992, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, a new Order is hereby entered in the above-captioned cases directing the conduct of certification election among the subject employees excluded from the coverage of the bargaining unit of the existing CBA of rank and file employees aforestated, not otherwise excluded/disqualified by law. The choices are as follows:
1. Nagkakaisang Superbisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI)
2. Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NEMPEBPI); and,
3. No
Let, therefore, the entire records of these consolidated cases be forwarded to the Regional Office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification election, subject to the usual pre-election conference.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied.[8]
A second motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but it was likewise
denied, this time, with finality.[9] Undaunted, petitioner filed a third
motion for reconsideration which was also denied for lack of merit.[10]
Hence, this petition wherein the following issues were raised:
A
THE RESPONDENT "SUPERVISORS" LOCAL UNION CANNOT FORM A SUPERVISORS UNION, WHEN THEIR MEMBERS ARE INCOMPATIBLY "RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES"; MUCH LESS, CAN IT SEEK REPRESENTATION STATUS FOR SUPERVISORS, WHEN THE EMPLOYEES THEY WANT TO REPRESENT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURPOSES BELONG IN THE "APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT" OF RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES ON THE "EMPLOYER WIDE UNIT", WHICH ALREADY HAS A CERTIFIED BARGAINING AGENT: BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA NG PHILIPPINE LINGERIE CORPORATION.
B
WORSE, SINCE
THE MEMBERS OF THE RESPONDENT LOCAL
Barbizon Philippines, Inc. alleges that this petition only assails the resolution of the public respondent regarding NSBPI and does not include the NEMPEBPI, the union of the excluded monthly paid employees because the separate motion for reconsideration it filed in connection with the latter has not yet been resolved by the NLRC.
On
During the pendency of the petition, the CBA expired. However, no other agreement between the
parties was made known to this Court, thus, in accordance with Article XX of
the CBA, it continues to be in force and shall govern the relations between the
parties thereto.[13]
We find no merit in the petition.
Petitioner maintains its stance that the petition for certification election filed by the Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines., Inc. - NAFLU (NSBPI) must necessarily fail because the employees designated as “supervisors” cannot legally form a supervisors’ union by virtue of the BLR’s final decision dated 22 August 1989 declaring the abovementioned employees mere rank and file workers. Being part of the rank and file, petitioner avers that said employees belong to the “employer wide unit,” which is the appropriate bargaining unit of all its rank and file employees and which is represented by the Buklod ng Manggagawa ng Philippine Lingerie Corporation (BUKLOD) as the sole certified bargaining agent.
Petitioner further asserts that the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in granting NSBPI’s petition for certification election as this was tantamount to an unjustifiable reversal of the BLR’s final ruling that the subject employees are not supervisory employees, but merely rank and file, due to the nature of their duties and functions.
Petitioner’s reasoning is flawed, proceeding as it does from the
wrong premise. Petitioner obstinately
believes that NSBPI’s petition for certification election was granted because
the employees carrying the appellation “supervisor” were deemed supervisory
employees. The status of the subject
employees, however, is not the issue in the case at bar. Their status as “supervisors” is not in dispute. The aforestated decision of the BLR dated
The exclusion of petitioner’s “supervisors” from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees indiscriminately curtailed the right of these employees to self-organization and representation for purposes of collective bargaining, a right explicitly mandated by our labor laws[16] and “accorded the highest consideration.”[17] In the recent case of Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[18] we aptly declared:
In the case at bench, the evidence established that the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of petitioner primarily perform administrative or clerical work. In contradistinction, the petitioner’s daily paid rank-and-file employees mainly work in the cultivation of bananas in the fields. It is crystal clear the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of petitioner have very little in common with its daily paid rank-and-file employees in terms of duties and obligations, working conditions, salary rates, and skills. To be sure, the said monthly paid rank-and-file employees have even been excluded from the bargaining unit of the daily paid rank-and-file employees. This dissimilarity of interests warrants the formation of a separate and distinct bargaining unit for the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. To rule otherwise would deny this distinct class of employees the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Without the shield of an organization, it will also expose them to the exploitations of management. x x x (Underscoring ours.)
In the case at bar, BUKLOD cannot successfully act as the bargaining agent of and duly represent petitioner’s “supervisor” employees since the latter were expressly excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit.
Petitioner’s reliance on the case of Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph Int’l.-United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils. v. Ferrer-Calleja[19] is misplaced. The aforecited case upholds the “one union-one company" policy, thus:
Once again, we enunciate that the proliferation of unions in an
employer unit is discouraged as a matter of policy unless compelling
reasons exist which deny a certain and
distinct class of employees the right to self-organization for purpose of
collective bargaining. (See General
Rubber & Footwear Corporation v. Bureau of
Labor Relations, 155 SCRA 283 [1987].)[20] (Underscoring
ours.)
As clearly indicated in the aforequoted decision, the “one union
- one company” rule is not without exception.
The exclusion of the subject employees from the rank-and-file bargaining
unit and the CBA is definitely a “compelling reason” for it completely deprived
them of the chance to bargain collectively with petitioner and are thus left
with no recourse but to group themselves into a separate and distinct
bargaining unit and form their own organization. The rationale behind the exception to the
aforementioned policy is further elucidated in Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc.
v. Ferrer-Calleja:[21]
1. The suggested bias of the Labor Code in favor of the one company-one union policy, anchored on the greater mutual benefits which the parties could derive, especially in the case of employees whose bargaining strength could undeniably be enhanced by their unity and solidarity but diminished by their disunity, division and dissension, is not without exceptions.
xxx.
The usual exception, of course, is where the employer unit has to give way to the other units like the craft unit, plant unit, or a subdivision thereof; the recognition of these exceptions takes into account the policy to assure employees of the fullest freedom in exercising their rights. Otherwise stated, the one company-one union policy must yield to the right of the employees to form unions or associations for purposes not contrary to law, to self-organization and to enter into collective bargaining negotiations, among others, which the Constitution guarantees. (Underscoring ours.)
The receipt by petitioner’s “supervisor” employees of certain benefits under the CBA between BUKLOD and petitioner is not sufficient to deny the petition for certification election filed by the labor organization formed by the excluded employees. It is not equivalent to and does not compensate for the denial of the right of the excluded employees to self-organization and collective bargaining. We concur with the findings of the Undersecretary of Labor, thus:
It is not disputed that the members of both petitioning unions NSBPI and NEMPEBPI are excluded from the coverage of the existing CBA entered into between the respondent BPI and Buklod ng mga Manggagawa ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (BUKLOD) (pp. 84-85, folder II, records). Thus, respondent BPI being privy to the said exclusion has to accept the inescapable consequences of its act of depriving the excluded employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. We find immaterial and irrelevant the allegation of hereby respondent BPI to the effect that the benefit being enjoyed by the rank and file employees covered by the existing CBA are extended/accorded to the excluded employees. Indeed, what is crucial and of paramount consideration is the fact that the excluded rank and file employees are afforded the right to bargain collectively.
The Supreme Court in the cases of General Rubber and Footwear Corporation vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. No. 74262, October 29, 1987; and Manila Bay Spinning Mills, J and P Coats, Manila Bay, Inc. vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G. R. No. 80910, August 1, 1988, ruled that the employees excluded from the coverage of the CBA, who not being excluded by law, have the right to bargain collectively. Further, the Supreme Court aptly stated that:
The allegation that some benefits
under the existing CBA were extended to the monthly paid employees, even if
true will not preclude them from entering into a CBA of their own. Neither is the inconvenience that may befall
petitioner for having to administer two CBAs an excuse for depriving the
monthly paid employees of their constitutionally guaranteed right to collective bargaining. (Underscoring
supplied.)[22]
The petition for certification election cannot likewise be deterred by the “contract-bar rule,”[23] which finds no application in the present case. The petitioning union NSBPI is not questioning the majority status of Buklod as the incumbent bargaining agent of petitioner’s rank and file employees. The petition for certification election is addressed to a separate bargaining unit--the excluded employees of petitioner. We agree with the ruling of the Undersecretary of Labor, thus:
Certainly, one who has been instrumental in the denial of a right
otherwise enjoyable by a rank and file, as in membership in its appropriate
bargaining unit, cannot now say that he ought to be included in the existing
bargaining unit of the rank and file just because that “rank and file” employee
is now seeking representation for himself as well as those who like him were
specifically excluded from the coverage of the CBA. A rank and file employee, irrespective of his
job designation and in whatever form his wages are paid has the unbridled right
to the exercise of self-organization.
This right cannot, like a chattel, be compromised in the bargaining
table so as to deprive him of the same in violation of the constitutional
mandate. In this wise, the claim as
to the applicability of the contract bar doctrine could have not gained
ground. A contract bar applies in a
situation where the petition is directed towards one and the same bargaining
unit. This does not appear to be so in
the case considering the built-in-limitation in the CBA excluding the workers
sought to be represented by herein petitioner from its coverage, albeit, their
being admittedly rank and file employees.
On the same line of reasoning, neither would the substantial mutual
interest test hold. So too, is the claim
against union turncoatism. In the latter
case, the emergence thereof is farfetched considering the defined boundaries of
the bargaining units concerned. Let
it be stressed, that the certification election as ordered would only affect
those rank and file employees who are excluded from the coverage of the
existing CBA. Those who are already
represented in the existing collective
bargaining agreement may rest secured in the bargaining unit that considers
them as members of its family.[24] (Underscoring
ours.)
The right to self organization and collective bargaining is an
integral part of the protection to labor provision embodied in our
Constitution, the essence of which is aptly expressed in Tropical Hut
Employees’ Union-CGW v. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc.:[25]
All employees enjoy the right to self-organization and to form and join labor organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. This is a fundamental right of labor that derives its existence from the Constitution. In interpreting the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws or rules or regulations, we have always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights.
Finally, we take this opportunity to reiterate the standing rule that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, hence, an employer lacks the personality to dispute the same. In Golden Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[26] we held:
Finally, we note that it was petitioner company that filed the motion to dismiss the petition for election. The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari
is DISMISSED and the Temporary Restraining Order issued on
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 580.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Article XX of the CBA provides:
This AGREEMENT shall take effect on
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp.
38-45.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Supra, see note 5.
[14] In its comment to the petition, NSBPI stated thus:
The Undersecretary of Labor consolidated the
petitions for certification election
separately filed by respondent NSBPI and NEMPEBPI into one.
The consolidation was apparently made for the reason
that the said petitions involved the same issues as well as the same employer.
Moreover, the Undersecretary of Labor treated the
members of NSBPI simply as rank-and-file
employees and not as Supervisory employees pursuant to a previous ruling made
by the BLR. This is evidently the reason
why the certification election ordered by respondent Underscretary called for
three choices, namely:
1. NSBPI
2. NEMPEBPI
3. No choices.
It must be remembered that the members of the NSBPI
and NEMPEBPI share one thing in common aside from being rank and file
employees, they are all excluded from the scope of the existing CBA in the
company.
Private respondent NSBPI has no quarrel with the said
Decision, thus, it did not anymore appeal the same.
All the noise made by petitioner about the members of
private respondent being rank-and-file employees is thus moot and academic
since private respondent no longer insists on the supervisory status of its
members. (Rollo, p. 92; underscoring ours.)
[15] ARTICLE 1
RECOGNITION AND BARGAINING UNIT
SECTION 1. The
COMPANY hereby recognizes the
SECTION 2. The
bargaining unit covered by this AGREEMENT shall consist of all regular rank-and-file
employees and workers of the COMPANY at the production area presently working
or hereinafter to be employed by the COMPANY at its present address, but shall
not include such managerial employees as defined in the Labor Code and those
specifically excluded hereinbelow. The
Agreement shall cover only members of the bargaining unit which shall be
maintained for the duration or extension thereof.
SECTION 3.
ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS. The
following are specifically excluded from this Agreement:
a) Managers and Assistant Managers;
b) Department Heads or Assistant
Department Heads;
c) Chief
Accountant; accounting, those involved in handling of Company books of account
or financial records; administrative, personnel, and office employees;
d) Licensed Security Guards/Company
guards;
e) Casual/Temporary/Probationary
employees;
f) Contractual/Apprentices and trainees;
g) Confidential
employees such as Managerial Secretaries, Secretary of the Company President,
Secretary of the Company General Manager, Secretary of the Human Resource
Manager, the employee handling the 201 or Personnel Files, telephone operators,
accounting clerks, Internal audit employees, production analysts, time keeper,
and breakdown and time study personnel, and company drivers and the driver of
the General Manager;
h) Doctors, Nurses, and Clinic employees;
i) Engineers,
Production Engineers, Supervisors; those in-charge of issues to contractors or
warehouses and their assistants, and such others whose job descriptions qualify
them as managerial employees under the Labor Code. A list of the identified excluded positions
is attached hereto and made part hereof
as Annex “A”.
j) And
such others who upon signing of this Agreement and thereafter do not desire to be members of the
Union and/or of the bargaining unit provided that agency fees shall be paid by
those qualified to join but opt to be excluded nonetheless. (Original
Records, p. 70.)
“ANNEX A”
General Manager Mechanics
Executive Secretary GTEB Representative
AOL Manager Executive
Driver
PPMC Manager Asst.
Work Issue Manager
Q.C. Manager Custom
Representative
Production Manager Export Clerk
Traffic Manager Accounting
Clerk
Import/Export Manager Co. Nurse
Audit Manager Secretary
Chief Accountant HRD Clerk
HRD Manager PPC Clerk
Finishing Head Messenger
Clerk
Chief Mechanic Production
Analyst
Cutting Manager Production
Clerk
Work Issue Manager Purchasing Clerk
Sewing Manager Timekeeper
Engineering Manager Driver
General Accountant Utilitywoman
Batangas Plant
Supervisor Store Helper
Accounting
Supervisor Grocery Helper
Project Engineer HRD Assistant
O.B. Manager Sr.
Bookeeper
Cost Engineer Sr.
Accounting Clerk
Asst. Quality Control
Manager Purchaser
Group Supervisor Sub-Contractor
Production Engineer Coordinator
Internal Audit
Assistant HE/Machine
Embroiderer
HRD Supervisor Coordinator
Quality Control
Inspector Supervisors
Sr. Production Analyst Scheduler
Engineering Technician
(Original
Records, p. 622; Underscoring ours.)
[16] The Labor Code stipulates:
ART. 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 or for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of
Article 64 of this Code.
[17] Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Secretary
of Labor, 201 SCRA 584 (1991).
[18] 234 SCRA 517 (1994).
[19] 181 SCRA 119 (1990).
[20]
[21] 214 SCRA 174 (1992).
See also General Rubber and Footwear Corporation v. Bureau
of Labor Relations, 155 SCRA 283 (1987).
[22] Rollo, pp.
50-51.
[23] Art. 253-A of
the Labor Code states:
ART. 253-A.
Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.--Any Collective Bargaining
Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation
aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status
of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification
election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside
of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. All other provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3)
years after its execution. Any agreement
on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into
within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions
as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day
immediately following such date. If any
such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on
the duration of retroactivity thereof.
In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective bargaining
agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code.
Book V, Rule
V, Sec. 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code in turn
provides:
Sec. 3. When
to file.-- In the absence of a
collective bargaining agreement duly registered in accordance with Article 231
of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed at any
time. However, no certification election
may be held within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification
election result. Neither may a
representation question be entertained if, before the filing of a petition for
certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or
certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or
arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.
If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly
registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained
within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement.
[24] Rollo,
pp. 50-51.
[25] 181 SCRA 173 (1990).
See also, Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, 126 SCRA
268 (1984).
[26] Supra, see
Note. 5.