GR 131248; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131248 December 11, 1998
DUNLOP SLAZENGER (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and DUNLOP SLAZENGER STAFF ASSOCIATION-APSOTEU, respondents.
FACTS
The respondent union, Dunlop Slazenger Staff Association-APSOTEU, filed a petition for certification election to represent the supervisory, office, and technical employees of petitioner Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), Inc. The petitioner company moved to dismiss the petition, contending that the union was improperly composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees, that a single election could not be jointly conducted for such distinct groups, and that the union lacked legal standing due to its alleged failure to submit its books of accounts. The union countered that its members were all monthly-paid supervisory personnel.
The Mediator-Arbiter granted the petition for a certification election, a decision affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary ruled that supervisors could form a separate bargaining unit under Article 245 of the Labor Code, that any issue regarding rank-and-file members could be resolved during the pre-election conference’s exclusion-inclusion proceedings, and that the union had complied with reportorial requirements to attain legal personality. The company elevated the case via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a certification election despite the union’s alleged mixed membership of supervisory and rank-and-file employees.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the orders for a certification election. The Court clarified that while supervisors could constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, a labor organization must be composed exclusively of either supervisory or rank-and-file employees. Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly prohibits supervisory employees from joining a rank-and-file union and mandates they form separate organizations. This legal separation is rooted in the irreconcilable conflict of interests between the two classes; supervisors act in the interest of the employer, while rank-and-file employees do not.
The Court found that the union’s membership included employees in positions such as company nurses, mechanics, and clerks, who lacked the authority to recommend managerial actions and were thus rank-and-file. Their monthly pay was irrelevant to their classification. Consequently, a mixed union is not a legitimate labor organization at all and possesses no right to petition for a certification election. The Secretary’s ruling that this fatal defect could be cured during the pre-election conference was a grave misappreciation of law, as the legitimacy of the union’s composition is a prerequisite jurisdictional issue that must be resolved before an election can be ordered.