GR L 45528; (Febuary, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45528 February 10, 1982
EASTLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. CARMELO C. NORIEL and PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY LABOR UNIONS-PSSLU Fed.—(TUCP) (PSSLU Eastland LOCAL), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eastland Manufacturing Company, Inc. sought to annul the order of respondent Bureau of Labor Relations Director Carmelo C. Noriel directing a certification election. The respondent union, PSSLU Eastland Local, filed a petition for certification election supported by 175 members out of the company’s 275 total employees. The employer opposed the election, arguing that 43 employees had less than six months of service and 6 had already left employment, thereby allegedly affecting the union’s compliance with the statutory requirement that at least 30% of the employees must support the petition. The employer further contended that a certification election could not proceed without the prior restructuring of labor organizations as contemplated under the Labor Code.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Bureau of Labor Relations Director committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the employer’s objections regarding the 30% support requirement and the status of certain employees. A secondary issue is whether the absence of labor organization restructuring under the Labor Code bars the holding of a certification election.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order for a certification election. On the first issue, the Court clarified that the 30% requirement pertains to the union’s right to compel the holding of an election when it secures such support. However, the Bureau of Labor Relations possesses the discretionary power to order a certification election even with less than 30% support if necessary to ascertain the exclusive bargaining representative, provided there is no abuse of discretion. Here, the union’s 175 supporters clearly exceeded the 30% threshold of the 275 total employees. Even excluding the 43 employees with short service and the 6 separated employees, the union still commanded sufficient support. The Court emphasized that the one-year service requirement under Article 267(c) of the Labor Code pertains to union membership eligibility, not to the right to vote in a certification election. All employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to participate in the election to ensure a truly representative outcome, a policy firmly entrenched in jurisprudence.
On the second issue, the Court found it unnecessary to address the restructuring argument, as such restructuring had not yet been implemented. Finally, the Court strongly admonished the employer for improperly interfering in a process fundamentally designed for labor’s exclusive concern. Except for specific instances like invoking the contract-bar rule, an employer is an intruder in certification proceedings and must maintain a strict hands-off policy to avoid any suspicion of partiality and to uphold the workers’ constitutional right to self-organization. The restraining order was lifted, and the certification election was ordered to proceed immediately.