Associated Labor Unions (ALU)-TUCP vs. Trajano

A petition for certification election seasonably filed by a rival union within the 60-day freedom period and supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent (30%) of the employees in the bargaining unit must be granted, and the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement during the pendency of the representation case does not bar the election, the agreement being recognized and given effect only on a temporary or interim basis.

ALU-TUCP was the recognized collective bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc. under a collective bargaining agreement effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986, Article XX of which provided that within sixty days before its expiration the parties shall renegotiate for a new one. The controversy turns on the statutory framework governing representation questions: Article 258 of the Labor Code, which then required that any petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent of all employees in the bargaining unit, and the contract bar rule under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which permits a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention only within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective bargaining agreement.

ALU-TUCP was the recognized collective bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc. under a collective bargaining agreement effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986. Article XX of that agreement provided that the CBA shall be for a period of three years effective January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986, provided that within sixty days before its expiration the parties shall renegotiate for a new one.

On October 22, 1986, a big majority of the covered employees of the company petitioned for the renewal of the expiring agreement, which the petitioner and the company agreed to negotiate. The parties, however, failed to arrive at an acceptable agreement, and a bargaining deadlock on CBA negotiation was declared. On November 3, 1986, the petitioner filed a notice of strike; failing to arrive at an agreement during the conciliation following the filing of the notice, on December 1, 1986 the petitioner went on strike.

Meanwhile, on November 4, 1986, the private respondent Association of Democratic Labor Organization (ADLO) filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Panlalawigang Tanggapan ng Paggawa, Bataan Export Processing Zone, a verified petition for certification election among the regular rank and file workers of the company, docketed as Case No. BZED-CE-11-011-86. On December 4, 1986, the petitioner and the respondent company came to an agreement, with representatives of the parties setting their signatures on the resulting CBA on the same date, ratified by a big majority of the covered employees — 584 out of 742 covered employees — also on the same date. The petitioner registered the new CBA with the Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment in San Fernando, Pampanga on December 4, 1986, as required under Article 231 of the Labor Code.

The petitioner intervened in the petition for certification election. On December 9, 1986, the Med-Arbiter called for a conference to determine whether a consent election could be agreed upon between the intervenor union and the petitioner union, but the parties failed to reach an agreement despite several conferences. The Med-Arbiter, Eladio de Jesus, then issued an order for the holding of a certification election in a resolution dated December 10, 1986, premised on the fact that the respondent union had satisfactorily complied with the jurisdictional requirement and that the petition was seasonably filed within the sixty-day freedom period. The Bureau of Labor Relations, in its resolution of January 30, 1987, found that the petition was supported by 242 of the more or less 600 rank and file employees of Mitsumi Philippines, Inc., thereby complying with the thirty percent statutory requirement. The petitioner alleged that the covered employees numbered 742.

• Bargaining Deadlock and Notice of Strike: Petitioner argued that no certification election may be held because a bargaining deadlock to which it, as the incumbent bargaining agent, was a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration and had become the subject of a valid notice of strike prior to the filing of the petition for certification election on December 4, 1986, invoking the contract bar rule under Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
• Prematurity of the Petition: Petitioner maintained that the collective bargaining agreement entered into as a result of the bargaining deadlock and conciliation during the progress of the strike, having been reported to the Department of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 231 of the Labor Code, rendered the filing of the petition for certification election premature.
• Contract Bar Rule: Petitioner contended that the collective bargaining agreement, having been ratified by the members and its benefits enjoyed, is a bar to the holding of a certification election.

• Bargaining Deadlock and Notice of Strike: Whether a certification election may be held where a bargaining deadlock to which the incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration and had become the subject of a valid notice of strike prior to the filing of the petition for certification election.
• Prematurity of the Petition: Whether the collective bargaining agreement entered into as a result of the bargaining deadlock and conciliation during the progress of the strike, and reported to the Department of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 231 of the Labor Code, renders the filing of the petition for certification election premature.
• Contract Bar Rule: Whether the new collective bargaining agreement, ratified by the members and whose benefits were enjoyed, bars the holding of a certification election.

• Bargaining Deadlock and Notice of Strike: No. The paragraph of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules invoked by petitioner applies only in the absence of an existing collective bargaining agreement; where a CBA exists, a petition for certification election may be entertained only within the sixty-day freedom period, and ADLO's petition was filed on November 4, 1986, within that period.
• Prematurity of the Petition: No. The petition was seasonably filed within the freedom period, and the fact that petitioner negotiated a new CBA on December 4, 1986 within that same period did not foreclose the rival union's right to challenge petitioner's claim to majority status.
• Contract Bar Rule: No. The new CBA cannot be deemed permanent, having been entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed; it is recognized and given effect only on a temporary or interim basis.

• Bargaining Deadlock and Notice of Strike: The provision of law in force at the time was Article 258 of the Labor Code, Executive Order No. 111 having taken effect only on March 4, 1987. Under Article 258, any petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization must be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent of all employees in the bargaining unit, and upon receipt and verification of such petition it becomes mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election. The thirty percent support requirement was met even if the covered employees numbered 742, as petitioner alleged, rather than 600. It thus became mandatory for the Director of Labor Relations to call a certification election. Petitioner's reliance on the first paragraph of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules is misplaced, because that paragraph expressly applies where there is no existing collective bargaining agreement, a circumstance not obtaining since there was an existing CBA expiring on December 31, 1986. It is the second paragraph that governs, and it provides that where a collective agreement has been submitted in accordance with Article 231, a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty days prior to the expiry date of such agreement. The rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election during the existence of a CBA except within the freedom period, the purpose being to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management by preventing frequent modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. Undoubtedly, the petition was filed during the sixty-day freedom period.

• Prematurity of the Petition: The fact that petitioner was able to negotiate a new CBA with the respondent company on December 4, 1986 within the freedom period of the existing CBA did not foreclose the right of a rival union to challenge petitioner's claim to majority status by filing, earlier on November 4, 1986, a timely petition for certification election before the old CBA expired on December 31, 1986 and before petitioner signed a new CBA with the respondent company. There should be no obstacle to the right of the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is, within sixty days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified collective bargaining agreement, not even by a collective agreement submitted during the pendency of a representation case.

• Contract Bar Rule: Section 4, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules provides that the representation case shall not be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last sixty days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. The new CBA negotiated by petitioner, whether or not submitted to the Ministry of Labor and Employment in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code, cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations by another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by the respondent union. Meantime, this interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement. If, as a result of the certification election, the respondent union or a union other than the petitioner union which executed the interim agreement is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file employees of the respondent company, then such union may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective bargaining agreement.

• Contract Bar Rule and the Freedom Period — A petition for certification election or a motion for intervention may be entertained only within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective bargaining agreement, and the rule prohibits the filing of such a petition during the existence of a CBA except within that freedom period. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management by preventing frequent modifications of any collective bargaining agreement earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. The Court applied the rule by holding that ADLO's petition, filed on November 4, 1986, fell within the sixty-day freedom period preceding the expiration of the subsisting CBA on December 31, 1986, and that the first paragraph of Section 3, Rule V — which bars a representation question where a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike — applies only in the absence of an existing collective bargaining agreement.

• Mandatory Nature of Certification Election upon Compliance with the Thirty Percent Support Requirement — Under Article 258 of the Labor Code, once it has been verified that a petition for certification election has the support of at least thirty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, it is mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certifying the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all employees in the unit. The language of the provision is one of command, and no administrative agency can ignore its imperative tone. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the thirty percent requirement had been met — the petition having been supported by 242 of the more or less 600 rank and file employees, and even if the covered employees numbered 742 as petitioner alleged — so that it became mandatory for the Director of Labor Relations to call a certification election.

• Interim Collective Bargaining Agreement / Effects of Early Agreements — A collective bargaining agreement submitted before or during the last sixty days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of a representation case shall not adversely affect the representation case. Such an agreement cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of negotiations by another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed. It must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement, and if a union other than the one which executed it is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative, that union may adopt the interim agreement or negotiate a new one. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the CBA negotiated by petitioner on December 4, 1986 did not bar the certification election and was effective only on a temporary or interim basis.

• "As the introductory sentence of the first paragraph states, said paragraph applies where there is no existing collective bargaining agreement. This circumstance is not obtaining in the instant case. As admitted by petitioner (Memorandum for the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 208) there was an existing collective bargaining agreement when the petition for certification election was filed, which was to expire on December 31, 1986. It is the second paragraph which is applicable to the case at bar." — This passage supplies the ratio decidendi for rejecting petitioner's reliance on the contract bar rule under the first paragraph of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules, and fixes the applicability of the second paragraph governing the freedom period.

• "The fact that petitioner was able to negotiate a new CBA with respondent company on December 4, 1986 within the freedom period of the existing CBA, does not foreclose the right of a rival union, which in this instant case is the respondent union, to challenge petitioner's claim to majority status, by filing earlier on November 4, 1986, a timely petition for certification election before the old CBA expired on December 31, 1986 and before petitioner signed a new CBA with respondent company." — This passage states the controlling rule on the effect of a newly negotiated CBA executed during the freedom period but after a rival union has already filed a timely petition for certification election.

• "The new CBA negotiated by petitioners whether or not submitted to the MOLE in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement negotiations by another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by respondent union. Meantime this interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement." — This passage defines the interim character of a CBA executed during the pendency of a representation case and is the canonical formulation of the interim agreement doctrine applied in this case.

• "There is no question that the 30% support requirement for a certification election had been met even if the covered employees number 742, as alleged by petitioner (Memorandum for the Petitioner, Rollo, p. 217) not 600, Hence, it became mandatory for the Director of Labor Relations to call a certification election." — This passage disposes of the numerical dispute over the size of the bargaining unit and confirms that compliance with the statutory support threshold renders the holding of a certification election mandatory.

• Associated Trade Unions (ATU) vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 75321, June 20, 1988 — Controlling precedent construing the second paragraph of Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Omnibus Rules; the Court adopted its formulation that a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing CBA, and applied its holdings on the interim character of a CBA executed during the pendency of a representation case and on the right of a subsequently certified union to adopt the interim agreement or negotiate a new one.
• Kapatiran Sa Meat and Canning Division (TUPAS Local Chapter No. 1027) vs. Calleja, G.R. No. 82914, June 20, 1988 — Cited for the rule that a new CBA negotiated within the freedom period does not foreclose the right of a rival union, which filed a timely petition for certification election before the old CBA expired and before the new CBA was signed, to challenge the incumbent union's claim to majority status.
• Warren Manufacturing Workers Union (WMWU) vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. 76185, March 30, 1988 — Cited in support of the mandatory character of the certification election upon compliance with the thirty percent support requirement and of the employees' right to petition for a certification election at the proper time.
• Federation of Free Workers vs. Noriel, 86 SCRA 132 [1978] — Cited for the rule that the language of the provision requiring a certification election upon verified thirty percent support is one of command, yielding no other meaning.
• Atlas Free Workers Union (AFWU-PSSLU Local) vs. Noriel, 104 SCRA 565 [1981], Vismico Industrial Workers Association (VIWA) vs. Noriel, 131 SCRA 569 [1984], and Samahang Manggagawa ng Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Noriel, 134 SCRA 152 [1985] — Cited collectively for the rule that it becomes mandatory for the Director of Labor Relations to call a certification election once the thirty percent support requirement is satisfied.
• Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas vs. Noriel, 72 SCRA 24 [1976] and Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa vs. Noriel, 77 SCRA 414 [1977] — Cited for the statutory language that it is mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certifying the winner as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit.
• General Textiles Allied Workers Association (GTAWA) vs. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, 84 SCRA 430 [1978] — Cited for the rule that there should be no obstacle to the right of the employees to petition for a certification election at the proper time, that is, within sixty days prior to the expiration of the life of a certified collective bargaining agreement.
• Vassar Industries Employers Union (VIEW) vs. Estrella, 82 SCRA 280 [1978] and National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWUMIF) vs. Estrella, 87 SCRA 84 [1978] — Cited for the rule that the interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement.

• Article 258, Labor Code — The provision in force at the time, Executive Order No. 111 having taken effect only on March 4, 1987. It required that any petition for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization be supported by the written consent of at least thirty percent of all employees in the bargaining unit, and made it mandatory for the Bureau, upon receipt and verification of such petition, to conduct a certification election to determine the representative of the employees and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative. The Court applied it by holding that the thirty percent requirement had been met and that the Director of Labor Relations was therefore duty-bound to call a certification election.
• Article 231, Labor Code — Governs the submission or registration of collective bargaining agreements. The Court referred to it in noting that petitioner registered the new CBA with the Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment on December 4, 1986, and in holding that the new CBA, whether or not submitted in accordance with Article 231, cannot be deemed permanent.
• Section 3, Rule V, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — Governs when a petition for certification election may be filed. Its first paragraph, which bars a representation question where 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, was held inapplicable because it presupposes the absence of a collective agreement. Its second paragraph, which allows a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention only within sixty days prior to the expiry date of a submitted collective agreement, was held to govern and to have been satisfied by ADLO's November 4, 1986 filing.
• Section 4, Rule V, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — Provides that the representation case shall not be adversely affected by a collective agreement submitted before or during the last sixty days of a subsisting agreement or during the pendency of the representation case. The Court relied on it in holding that the new CBA negotiated by petitioner did not bar the certification election.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.