GR 97020; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97020 June 8, 1992
California Manufacturing Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Undersecretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma, and Federation of Free Workers (FFW), California Mfg. Corp. Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO), respondents.
FACTS
On May 24, 1990, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) California Manufacturing Corporation Supervisors Union Chapter (CALMASUCO) filed a petition for a certification election among the supervisors of California Manufacturing Corporation (CMC). The petition alleged that FFW-CALMASUCO was a duly registered chapter, that CMC employed 150 supervisors, that no recognized supervisors union existed in the company, and that the petition was filed under Article 257 of the Labor Code. CMC opposed the petition, arguing it was not supported by the required 25% of all supervisors and that many signatories were not true supervisors as they lacked subordinates and supervisory powers. The Med-Arbiter ordered the conduct of a certification election. CMC appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment, which affirmed the order. CMC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the term “unorganized establishment” in Article 257 of the Labor Code refers to a bargaining unit or a business establishment.
2. Whether non-supervisors can participate in a supervisor’s certification election.
3. Whether the two different plants of petitioner in Parañaque and Las Piñas can be treated as a single bargaining unit.
RULING
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
1. The Court ruled that Article 257 of the Labor Code applies to unorganized labor organizations, not to establishments with an existing certified bargaining agent. The supervisors of CMC constitute a separate bargaining unit from the rank-and-file and have no certified agent, making the petition proper. The 25% subscription requirement is immaterial as it was deleted by Republic Act No. 6715 and applies only to organized establishments with existing bargaining agents. Even if not strictly complied with, the Med-Arbiter has discretion to order an election to ascertain the exclusive bargaining agent.
2. The employer, CMC, has no standing to question a certification election, as it is the sole concern of the workers. An employer’s role is limited to filing a petition when requested to bargain collectively; otherwise, it is merely a bystander. Management interference in certification elections deserves no encouragement.
3. The Court affirmed the orders directing the conduct of a certification election among CMC’s supervisory employees.