Barbizon Philippines, Inc. vs. Nagkakaisang Supervisor ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. — NAFLU

Employees expressly excluded from the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit and CBA, but not excluded by law, may form a separate bargaining unit and petition for certification election; the contract-bar rule does not apply because the petition is directed at a separate bargaining unit, and the employer lacks personality to dispute the certification election.

Barbizon Philippines, Inc., formerly Philippine Lingerie Corporation, is the employer; BUKLOD is the certified sole and exclusive bargaining representative of its regular rank-and-file employees under a CBA. NSBPI and NEMPEBPI were formed by employees who claimed they were excluded from that CBA's coverage. The dispute concerns the interaction of the constitutional and statutory right to self-organization and collective bargaining with the one union-one company policy and the contract-bar rule.

Barbizon Philippines, Inc., formerly Philippine Lingerie Corporation, had a rank-and-file workforce in which Buklod ng Manggagawa ng Philippine Lingerie Corporation, later referred to as BUKLOD, sought recognition. On 27 June 1988, Barbizon filed a petition for certification election among its rank-and-file employees, docketed as NCR-OD-M-6-349-88, and two unions sought recognition: Philippine Lingerie Workers Union-ALAB and BUKLOD. During a pre-election conference, ALAB moved to exclude a number of employees allegedly holding supervisory positions. On 28 July 1988, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah denied the motion for lack of merit. The Bureau of Labor Relations affirmed the order on 16 November 1988 and directed that the election be conducted under the supervision of the Labor Organization Division; ALAB's two motions for reconsideration were consolidated and denied in an Order dated 22 December 1988, and no further appeal was taken.

On 3 May 1989, the certification election was held, with the votes of "supervisors and confidential" employees challenged. The results were 318 votes for ALAB, 412 for BUKLOD, 17 for No Union, 99 challenged votes, 855 total valid votes, and 12 spoiled ballots. ALAB filed an election protest, later formalized on 25 May 1989, while BUKLOD moved on 9 May 1989 to open the challenged ballots. On 20 July 1989, the BLR, through Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, denied ALAB's protest and challenge for lack of merit and directed that the challenged votes of supervisors and confidential employees be opened on 26 July 1989 in the presence of the parties under the Labor Organization Division's supervision.

The challenged votes were opened on 3 August 1989: 4 for ALAB, 84 for BUKLOD, 6 for No Union, and 5 spoiled, out of 99 votes. ALAB moved for reconsideration. On 22 August 1989, the BLR denied the motion, stating that the alleged supervisory and confidential employees were more rank-and-file employees; it had earlier ruled that the alleged supervisors were not managerial employees, and the job descriptions did not suggest supervisory or managerial status. The BLR certified BUKLOD as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all regular rank-and-file employees of Barbizon, formerly Philippine Lingerie Corporation, and directed management to start negotiating a CBA. ALAB appealed to the Secretary of Labor but on 26 September 1989 withdrew the appeal and filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice.

With no further obstacle to collective bargaining, Barbizon negotiated with BUKLOD as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative, and they signed a CBA effective for five years or until 18 November 1994. The CBA's recognition and bargaining unit clause expressly excluded from the bargaining unit and CBA, among others, managers, assistant managers, department heads, confidential employees, engineers, production engineers, supervisors, and those in charge of issues to contractors or warehouse and their assistants, as well as others whose job descriptions qualified them as managerial employees under the Labor Code. While the CBA was in force, several employees organized the Nagkakaisang Supervisors Ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. and the Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees Ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc., allegedly because they were excluded from the CBA's coverage. NSBPI and NEMPEBPI filed separate petitions for certification election; NSBPI's petition was raffled to Med-Arbiter Renato D. Parungo and NEMPEBPI's to Med-Arbiter Paterno D. Adap, and both were dismissed.

NSBPI appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor. On 29 December 1992, Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma denied the appeal for lack of merit, and NSBPI moved for reconsideration on 15 January 1993. On 11 February 1993, the Office of the Secretary of Labor granted NSBPI's motion for reconsideration and NEMPEBPI's appeal, set aside the orders dated 29 December 1992 and 1 September 1992, and ordered a certification election among the employees excluded from the coverage of the existing rank-and-file CBA, with NSBPI, NEMPEBPI, and No Union as choices. Barbizon's motion for reconsideration was denied, its second motion was denied with finality, and its third motion was denied for lack of merit. The CBA later expired during the pendency of the petition, but no other agreement was made known to the SC; under Article XX of the CBA, it continued in force and governed the parties' relations.

• Status and Bargaining Unit: Petitioner argued that NSBPI could not form a supervisors' union because the BLR's final decision dated 22 August 1989 had declared its members rank-and-file employees; as rank-and-file, they belonged to the employer-wide bargaining unit of all rank-and-file employees already represented by BUKLOD.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in granting NSBPI's petition for certification election, because this amounted to an unjustifiable reversal of the BLR's final ruling that the subject employees were rank-and-file rather than supervisory based on their duties and functions.
• Contract Bar: Petitioner argued that because the NSBPI members belonged to the appropriate bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees, the existing CBA between Barbizon and BUKLOD covered them and barred the certification election petition.

• Mootness of Supervisory Status: Respondent NSBPI stated in its comment that the Undersecretary treated its members as rank-and-file employees pursuant to a previous BLR ruling; NSBPI did not appeal the decision and no longer insisted on the supervisory status of its members, making petitioner's arguments on rank-and-file status moot and academic.
• Consolidation and Common Exclusion: Respondent NSBPI stated that the Undersecretary consolidated the separate certification election petitions of NSBPI and NEMPEBPI because they involved the same issues and employer, and that the members of both unions shared the common fact of being rank-and-file employees excluded from the existing CBA.

• Status and Bargaining Unit: Whether employees declared rank-and-file by a final BLR ruling may form a separate bargaining unit and petition for certification election when they were expressly excluded from the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit and CBA.
• Contract Bar: Whether the existing CBA between Barbizon and BUKLOD bars the certification election petition filed by the excluded employees.
• Employer's Standing: Whether Barbizon has personality to dispute the certification election.

• Status and Bargaining Unit: Yes. Employees expressly excluded from the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit and CBA may form a separate bargaining unit and petition for certification election; their exclusion is a compelling reason exception to the one union-one company policy and does not depend on reversing the BLR's rank-and-file ruling.
• Contract Bar: No. The contract-bar rule applies only where the petition is directed at the same bargaining unit; here the petition concerns a separate bargaining unit of employees expressly excluded from the CBA.
• Employer's Standing: No. The employer lacks personality to dispute a certification election, which is the sole concern of the workers.

• Status and Bargaining Unit: The SC rejected Barbizon's premise that the certification election was granted because the employees were deemed supervisory. The status of the employees was not the issue; the BLR's 22 August 1989 decision had settled with finality that they were rank-and-file, and NSBPI accepted that fact. The real reason for the election was that the subject employees, including Barbizon's monthly paid employees, were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit and from the coverage of the CBA between Barbizon and BUKLOD. That exclusion curtailed their right to self-organization and representation for collective bargaining, a right mandated by labor laws and accorded the highest consideration. BUKLOD could not act as their bargaining agent because they were expressly excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit. Under Golden Farms, a distinct class of employees with dissimilar interests may form a separate bargaining unit; to rule otherwise would deny them the right to self-organization. The one union-one company policy is not absolute. Pagkakaisa upheld the policy but recognized that compelling reasons may justify a separate unit, and Knitjoy held that the policy must yield to the constitutional right to form unions, self-organization, and collective bargaining; the usual exceptions include craft, plant, or subdivision units. The exclusion of the subject employees from the rank-and-file unit and CBA was a compelling reason because it completely deprived them of the chance to bargain collectively and left them no recourse but to form their own organization. The receipt of some CBA benefits did not cure the denial; it was not equivalent to and did not compensate for the denial of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining. General Rubber and Manila Bay Spinning Mills likewise held that employees excluded from a CBA, but not excluded by law, have the right to bargain collectively, and that extending benefits or the inconvenience of administering two CBAs did not justify denying that right. Tropical Hut reiterated that all employees enjoy the right to self-organization and collective bargaining and that the liberal approach favors labor rights.
• Contract Bar: The contract-bar rule, under Article 253-A of the Labor Code and Book V, Rule V, Section 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations, bars a certification election only where a registered CBA exists and the petition is directed at the same bargaining unit, within the 60-day period before the expiry of the five-year representation term. Here NSBPI was not questioning BUKLOD's majority status as the incumbent bargaining agent of Barbizon's rank-and-file employees; its petition was addressed to a separate bargaining unit composed of employees expressly excluded from the CBA. The CBA itself contained a built-in limitation excluding the workers sought to be represented, so the contract-bar rule could not apply. The Undersecretary correctly held that the substantial mutual interest test and union turncoatism did not apply because the bargaining units were distinct. The certification election would affect only the rank-and-file employees excluded from the existing CBA; those already represented by BUKLOD remained secure in their bargaining unit.
• Employer's Standing: The SC reiterated that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, and the employer lacks personality to dispute it. In Golden Farms, the SC held that the employer has no standing to question a certification election because law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance; the bargaining representative must be chosen free from extraneous influence of management, and a labor bargaining representative must owe its loyalty to the employees alone. Barbizon's petition therefore failed on this ground as well.

• Right to Self-Organization and Collective Bargaining of Excluded Employees — Employees expressly excluded from the existing bargaining unit and CBA, but not excluded by law, retain the right to self-organization and collective bargaining; they may form a separate bargaining unit and petition for certification election. The SC applied this because NSBPI and NEMPEBPI members were excluded from BUKLOD's rank-and-file unit and CBA.
• One Union-One Company Policy and Its Exception — The policy discouraging proliferation of unions in an employer unit is not absolute; it yields where compelling reasons deny a certain and distinct class of employees the right to self-organization for collective bargaining. The SC held that express exclusion from the bargaining unit and CBA is such a compelling reason.
• Contract-Bar Rule — A CBA bars a certification election only where the petition is directed at the same bargaining unit and seeks to question the incumbent bargaining agent's majority status; it does not bar a petition for a separate bargaining unit of employees expressly excluded from the CBA.
• Employer's Lack of Standing in Certification Elections — An employer has no personality to dispute a certification election because it is the sole concern of the workers; the employer must take a strict hands-off stance. The SC applied this against Barbizon.
• Benefits Under CBA Do Not Substitute for Bargaining Rights — Extending CBA benefits to excluded employees does not cure the denial of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining, nor does the inconvenience of administering two CBAs justify denying that right.

• "NSBPI's petition for certification election was granted because the subject employees, including petitioner's monthly paid employees, were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit and from the coverage of the CBA executed between petitioner and BUKLOD, as clearly stated therein." — The SC identified the express exclusion from the bargaining unit and CBA as the real reason for the certification election, not the employees' supervisory status.
• "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." — The SC adopted this statement to explain the exception to the one union-one company policy.
• "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." — The SC agreed with the Undersecretary that the contract-bar rule did not apply because the petition concerned a separate bargaining unit.
• "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 SC reiterated the employer's lack of personality to dispute a certification election.

• Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 234 SCRA 517 (1994) — Relied on for the rule that a distinct class of employees may form a separate bargaining unit and for the employer's lack of standing to question a certification election.
• Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Triumph Int'l.-United Lumber and General Workers of the Phils. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 181 SCRA 119 (1990) — Cited by petitioner but held misplaced; it upholds the one union-one company policy subject to compelling reasons.
• Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 214 SCRA 174 (1992) — Relied on for the exception to the one union-one company policy: the policy must yield to the constitutional right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
• General Rubber and Footwear Corporation vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, 155 SCRA 283 (1987) — Relied on for the right of employees excluded from a CBA, but not excluded by law, to bargain collectively.
• Manila Bay Spinning Mills, J and P Coats, Manila Bay, Inc. vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 80910, August 1, 1988 — Relied on for the rule that CBA benefits extended to excluded employees do not preclude their own CBA and that the inconvenience of two CBAs is no excuse.
• Tropical Hut Employees' Union-CGW vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., 181 SCRA 173 (1990) — Relied on for the right to self-organization and the liberal approach favoring labor rights.
• Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 201 SCRA 584 (1991) — Cited for the rule that the right to self-organization is accorded the highest consideration.

• Article 246, Labor Code — Non-abridgment of the right to self-organization; it is unlawful to restrain, coerce, discriminate against, or unduly interfere with employees in forming, joining, or assisting labor organizations for collective bargaining and concerted activities. The SC applied this to protect the excluded employees' right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
• Article 253-A, Labor Code — Fixes the five-year representation term of a CBA and prohibits a petition questioning the incumbent bargaining agent's majority status and a certification election outside the 60-day period before the expiry of that term. The SC held the contract-bar rule inapplicable because the petition concerned a separate bargaining unit.
• Book V, Rule V, Section 3, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code — Provides that where a CBA is duly registered, a petition for certification election may be entertained only within 60 days prior to the expiry date of the agreement. The SC held this did not bar the petition for a separate bargaining unit of excluded employees.