G.R. No. 82260 July 19, 1989
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU), petitioner, vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NFL), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Associated Labor Unions (ALU) had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Soriano Fruits Corporation set to expire on September 30, 1987. On June 22, 1987, prior to the expiration, ALU and management signed a new CBA to take effect on September 1, 1987, which was ratified by the union members. However, on August 10, 1987, respondent National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a petition for certification election, questioning ALU’s majority status within the 60-day “freedom period” before the CBA’s expiration. The Med-Arbiter dismissed NFL’s petition for failure to prosecute after NFL representatives did not appear at scheduled hearings. ALU submitted petitions from members reaffirming loyalty. The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) Director reversed the Med-Arbiter, ordering a certification election. ALU sought reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the BLR Director committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the existence of a newly ratified CBA and NFL’s non-appearance at hearings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the BLR Director’s order for a certification election. The legal logic centers on the correct application of Article 256 of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order 111, which governs organized establishments. The Court clarified that Article 257, cited by ALU, applies only to unorganized establishments without a certified bargaining agent and was thus inapplicable. Article 256 mandates that in organized establishments, when a petition questioning the incumbent union’s majority status is filed within the 60-day freedom period before CBA expiration, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order a certification election. The provision is clear and leaves no room for interpretation; the mere filing within the period is sufficient. NFL’s petition on August 10, 1987, was filed within the freedom period preceding the September 30, 1987 expiration. The Med-Arbiter’s dismissal based solely on NFL’s non-appearance at hearings was erroneous, as the law does not require such hearings to substantiate the petition; their absence does not affect its validity. While ALU’s new CBA was ratified, its negotiation before the freedom period commenced was an attempt to pre-empt the employees’ right to choose their representative, which the law seeks to protect. The workers’ constitutional right to self-organization necessitates that the certification election proceed to ascertain their true will.