August 12, 1998
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
FACTS
In 1991, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), a national federation of labor unions, issued a certificate to FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC, comprised of supervisory employees of DLSUMCCM, recognizing it as a local chapter. The FFW then filed on behalf of FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC a petition for certification election.
This petition was opposed by DLSUMCCM on two grounds: (1) several employees (e.g., purchasing officers, personnel officers, property officers, cashiers, heads of various sections, etc.) who signed the petition for certification election were managerial employees; and (2) that the FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC was composed of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees in the company, in violation of Art. 245 of the LC, which provides that supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own because the FFW had similarly issued a charter certificate to its rank-and-file employees.
Med-Arbiter ruling: Petition for certification election is granted because: (1) DLSUMCCM failed to provide the med-arbiter copies of the job descriptions of the concerned employees, and consequently failed to prove its allegation that some of the signatories to the petition were managerial employees; and (2) the union of the rank-and-file employees and the union of the supervisory employees are considered separate bargaining units and local chapters of FFW. They are, for all intents and purposes, separate with each other and their affiliation with FFW would not make them members of the same labor union.
DLSUMCCM appealed to the SOLE. Undersecretary Laguesma denied the appeal, ruling that (1) DLSUMCCM's evidence re: alleged managerial status of several employees, was insufficient; and (2) unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may legally affiliate with the same national federation.
Subsequently, DLSUMCCM filed a petition for certiorari before the SC, contending that Undersecretary Laguesma gravely abused his discretion.
RULING
Petition is dismissed.
Whether unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly affiliate with the same national federation. – GENERALLY, YES. BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS.
GENERAL RULE: Unions formed independently by supervisory and rank-and-file employees of a company may validly affiliate with the same national federation. The affiliation of two local unions in a company with the same national federation is not by itself a negation of their independence since in relation to the employer, the local unions are considered as the principals, while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.
Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc.: The locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital; and the association of locals into the national unionwas in furtherance of the same end. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members.
The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it to existence.
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE: As held in Adamson & Adamson, Inc. v. CIR, a local supervisors union should NOT be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of unions of rank-and-file employees if: (1) the rank-and-file employees are directly under the authority of supervisory employees, and (2) the national federation is actively involved in union activities in the company.
In the present case, the general rule applies. Although FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC and another union composed of rank-and-file employees are indeed affiliated with the same federation, DLSUMCCM has not presented any evidence showing that the rank-and-file employees composing the other union are directly under the authority of the supervisory employees.
Also, while FFW's act of filing the petition for certification election on behalf of FFW-DLSUMCCMSUC shows active involvement by the FFW in union activities at the company, it is by itself insufficient to justify a finding of violation of Art. 245 (now 255) since there is no proof that the supervisors who compose the local union have direct authority over the rank-and-file employees composing the other local union which is also affiliated with the FFW.
