GR 35009; (August, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35009 August 31, 1977
DAIRY QUEEN PRODUCTS COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DAIRY QUEEN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-CCLU; and KATAASTAASAN SAMAHANG MAKABAYAN MANGGAGAWA, respondents.
FACTS
On September 16, 1969, the Dairy Queen Employees Association-CCLU (Union) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole bargaining representative of the company’s regular rank-and-file employees. The Union had staged a strike on September 2, 1969. The employer company filed a counter-petition seeking to declare the strike illegal and to hold the certification proceedings in abeyance. Subsequently, the Kataastaasan Samahang Makabayan Manggagawa (KASAMA-Hopeworkers) moved to intervene, claiming the Union had disaffiliated from the CCLU and affiliated with it. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) allowed intervention but later excluded KASAMA for failure to file a proper responsive pleading and non-appearance at hearings. Meanwhile, the company filed a separate unfair labor practice case (Case No. 5538-ULP) based on the same strike illegality issue.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in certifying the Dairy Queen Employees Association-CCLU as the exclusive bargaining agent despite the pending question of strike illegality and the claim of disaffiliation to another federation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the issue of representation, the CIR correctly found the Union possessed majority support. The appropriate bargaining unit consisted of 41 regular employees, and the Union presented evidence of 29 members from this unit, constituting a majority. The 24 temporary workers hired during the strike were properly excluded from the bargaining unit, as they were not regular employees. The claim of disaffiliation to KASAMA was unsupported. The CIR found no effective disaffiliation, a factual finding supported by evidence, including the Union’s use of its old CCLU membership forms and KASAMA’s failure to participate in the certification proceedings despite notice.
Second, the CIR correctly proceeded with the certification despite the strike illegality issue. By filing a separate unfair labor practice case (Case No. 5538-ULP) specifically addressing the strike’s legality, the employer company effectively abandoned that issue within the certification case (Case No. 2540-MC). The Supreme Court viewed this as a dilatory tactic to postpone the representation question. Certification elections are intended to ascertain the employees’ will promptly, and pending unfair labor practice charges do not automatically suspend them, especially when the representation issue is distinct. The workers’ right to choose their bargaining representative should not be unduly delayed by separate proceedings. Therefore, the CIR committed no error in certifying the Union.