G.R. No. 85915; January 17, 1990
PAGKAKAISA NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (PMTI-ULGWF), petitioner, vs. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND THE CONFEDERATION OF FILIPINO WORKERS (CFW), PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYEES UNION (PEU-TIPI), respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner union (PMTI-ULGWF) was the recognized and certified collective bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of Triumph International Philippines, Inc., with a valid CBA effective until September 24, 1989. On November 25, 1987, the respondent union (Progressive Employees Union) filed a petition for certification election to represent a separate bargaining unit composed of monthly-paid administrative, technical, confidential, and supervisory employees of the same company. Both the company and the petitioner union opposed the petition, invoking the contract-bar rule due to the existing CBA and arguing that the employees sought to be represented were managerial and thus ineligible to unionize under Article 245 of the Labor Code. The Med-Arbiter and, on appeal, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, ordered the holding of a certification election, subject to the option for the concerned employees to join the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent gravely abused her discretion in ordering a certification election for a separate bargaining unit among the company’s monthly-paid employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the resolutions ordering the certification election. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court sustained the factual finding of the Bureau of Labor Relations, supported by substantial evidence, that the employees in question were rank-and-file, not managerial. Their functions, such as making recommendations, were subject to higher approval and did not constitute the independent authority to lay down and execute management policies required by law for managerial status. Second, the Court applied the policy of encouraging “one union, one company” for rank-and-file employees. Since these employees were declared rank-and-file and shared a community of interest with the existing bargaining unit, no compelling reason existed to justify a separate unit. Allowing a proliferation of unions would fragment bargaining strength. Furthermore, the contract-bar rule expressly prohibited the certification election petition. The respondent union filed its petition on November 25, 1987, while a valid CBA was in force until September 24, 1989. Under the implementing rules, a certification election can only be entertained within the 60-day freedom period prior to the CBA’s expiry. Therefore, the existing CBA constituted a legal bar to the petition. The members of the respondent union must await the expiration of the CBA and could then seek inclusion in the existing rank-and-file unit.