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, is 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 (PEU-TIPI), filed a petition for certification election seeking to represent a separate bargaining unit composed of monthly-paid administrative, technical, confidential, and supervisory employees of the same company. Triumph International 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.
The Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification election. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations Director affirmed the order but modified it, giving the subject employees the option to join the existing rank-and-file bargaining unit. The petitioner union filed this certiorari petition, arguing that the public respondent gravely abused her discretion in ordering the certification election.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the holding of a certification election for a separate bargaining unit among Triumph International’s monthly-paid employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the assailed resolutions. The Court upheld the policy of encouraging “one union, one company” to strengthen collective bargaining, unless compelling reasons justify a separate unit. The Court sustained the Bureau’s factual finding that the employees in question were rank-and-file, not managerial, as they did not lay down management policies, hire, discipline, or effectively recommend such actions; their functions were merely recommendatory and subject to higher approval.
However, the Court held that, as rank-and-file employees, they should join the existing bargaining unit represented by the petitioner union. No compelling reason was shown, such as a denial of the right to self-organization or substantial distinctions in interests, to warrant a separate bargaining unit. Allowing a separate unit would contravene the policy against union proliferation. Furthermore, the contract-bar rule applied. The petition for certification election was filed on November 25, 1987, while a valid CBA was in effect until September 24, 1989. Under the rules, a certification election can only be entertained within 60 days prior to a CBA’s expiry. Thus, the existing CBA constituted a legal bar to the respondent union’s petition. The members of the respondent union must await the proper time, and any new CBA should be amended to include them in the existing unit’s coverage.