Scribd
Upload
35 views2 pages

Labor Relations Digest Ko

This document discusses two labor law cases in the Philippines: 1) The first case establishes that certification elections take primacy over direct certification as the most democratic way for workers to choose their representative for negotiations. 2) The second case found that a petition for certification election cannot be granted when bargaining deadlock between the union and company has already been submitted to arbitration, as the law prohibits elections during deadlock proceedings. Certification elections are barred during this period.

Uploaded by

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

Labor Relations Digest Ko

This document discusses two labor law cases in the Philippines: 1) The first case establishes that certification elections take primacy over direct certification as the most democratic way for workers to choose their representative for negotiations. 2) The second case found that a petition for certification election cannot be granted when bargaining deadlock between the union and company has already been submitted to arbitration, as the law prohibits elections during deadlock proceedings. Certification elections are barred during this period.

Uploaded by

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

PRIMACY OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFLU-TUCP), petitioner,


vs.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS (BLR) and SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF
LABOR (SPFL), respondents, PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC. (PACEMCO), employer.

FACTS:

Petioner NAFLU-TUCP obtained a direct certification, that there was no other labor union requesting
recognition as representative of the workers in their negotiations with the management of PACEMCO.

However, within the freedom period, SPFL filed petiton for certification election.

NAFTu opposed the petiton invoking its earlier direct certification, but the med-arbiter who granted ithe
same reversed it previous order and authorized the holding og certification election.

The petitioner contends that having ben directly certified by the med-arbiter as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers, it cannot now be replaced through certification election.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contention of the respondents are correct?

HELD:

NO. certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can
freely determine the union that shall act as their dealings with the establishment where they are
working. The primacy of certification over direct certification.

CERTIFICATION ELECTION IS NOT BARRED BY MEMBERSHIP


CLAUSE

[G.R. No. L-34531. March 29, 1974.]

PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION


(PCWF), Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNION CARBIDE PHILIPPINES,
INC., and UNION CARBIDE LABOR UNION (NLU), Respondents.

FACTS:
DEADLOCK BAR RULE

G.R. No. L-67485 April 10, 1992

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES


(NACUSIP)-TUCP, petitioner,
vs.
DIR. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and
Employment, Manila, FEDERATION OF UNIONS OF RIZAL (FUR)-TUCP, and CALINOG
REFINERY CORPORATION (NASUREFCO), respondents.

FACTS

NACUSIP is the certified exclusive bargaining representative. Private respondent FUR-TUCP ois a labor
org registered with the DOLE.

Petioner filed a petiton for deadlock in the bargaining with the now DOLE. In order to obviate
tension and tension , the parties agreed to submit the petion for deadlock to compulsory arbitration.

Private respondent filed a Certification Election but dismissed by the mid-arbiter since it is barred by
pending bargaining deadlock. Upon appeal, respondent Trajano, set aside the order or and giving due
course to the petition ofr CE.

ISSUE

Whetehr or not the petition fpr certification election may be granted during the bargaining deadlock has
been submitted to arbitration or concillation.

HELD

No. general rule, petiton for certification election may be filed anytime, in the absence of CBA. Section 3
BP. 130 prohibits the filling of a petition for certification election during the pendency of a bargaining
deadlock.

Here, the bargaingn deadlock was already submitted to arbitration when private respondent FUR-TUCP
filed a petion for certification election.

Hence, certification election will not prosper.

You might also like