G.R. No. L-34531. March 29, 1974.
PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION (PCWF), petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNION CARBIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., and UNION CARBIDE LABOR UNION (NLU), respondents.

FACTS

On June 16, 1971, petitioner Philippine Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers’ Federation (PCWF) filed a petition for a certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). PCWF claimed to represent the majority of the rank-and-file employees of Union Carbide Philippines, Inc., and had submitted collective bargaining proposals to the company. The employer refused, citing an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the incumbent Union Carbide Labor Union (NLU), which contained a maintenance-of-membership clause. The incumbent union also denied PCWF’s claim of majority representation.
The CIR denied the petition for certification election in an order dated August 30, 1971. It relied on the existence of the current CBA and the maintenance-of-membership clause, which indicated employee affiliation with the incumbent union. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The CIR appeared to treat the proceeding as adversarial, requiring PCWF to conclusively prove its majority status, rather than as a mechanism to freely ascertain the employees’ will.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of Industrial Relations erred in denying the petition for a certification election based on the existence of a current collective bargaining agreement with a maintenance-of-membership clause.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CIR’s order and directed the holding of a certification election. The Court clarified the non-adversarial, investigative nature of certification proceedings, as established in LVN Pictures, Inc. v. Philippine Musicians Guild. The primary purpose is to ascertain the true will of the employees through a concrete and accurate poll, not to litigate claims.
The CIR’s reliance on the maintenance-of-membership clause as a bar to the election was a grave error. Such a clause, while a valid union security measure during the life of a CBA, cannot infringe upon the constitutional right to freedom of association. It does not permanently bind employees to the incumbent union nor preclude them from changing their affiliation for the purpose of negotiating a subsequent agreement. The most practical method to gauge employee sentiment is through a certification election.
Furthermore, the petition was filed barely six months before the CBA’s termination. Recent jurisprudence consistently held that a certification election is the proper course to determine the exclusive bargaining representative for the upcoming negotiations. The policy of the Industrial Peace Act and the constitutional right of association demand that employees be allowed to freely choose their representative, unimpeded by the constraints of an expiring agreement. The order was set aside, and a certification election was ordered.