v CBU– refers to a group of EEs sharing mutual interests within a given ER unit, comprised of all or less than all the entire body of EEs in the ER unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping within such ER unit
2.2. Appropriate Bargaining Unit (ABU)
v ABU – a group of EEs of a given ER, comprised of all or less than all the entire body of EEs, which the collective interest of all the EEs, consistent with equity to the ER, indicate to the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the CB provisions of law.
v To be considered “appropriate” – it must effect a grouping of EEs who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hrs. Of work, working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining.
v Bargaining unit (BU) composed of a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory EEs à not ABU!
Ø No mutuality of interest between supervisory and Rank-and-file EEs considering that the former, while in the performance of their functions, become alter ego of management in the making and implementing of key decisions at sub-managerial level.
v BU composed of EEs with entirely different working conditions, hrs. Of work, rates of pay, categories of positions and employment status à not ABU!
v CASES:
Phil. Phosphate v. Torres (231 S335) FACTS:
- PMPI sought to be certified as sole and exclusive CBAgent of superintendents, professionals (engineers, analysts, mechanics, accountants, nurses, midwives, etc.), technical and confidential EEs of PHILPHOS.
- Such “appropriateness” was challenged because it includes professional, technical and confidential EEs.
ISSUE/S:WON proposed BU is an ABU
HELD: Not an ABU! No community of interest between the supervisiors and the professional/technical EEs. Quite obviously, these professional/technical employees cannot effectively recommend managerial actions with the use of independent judgment because they are under the supervision of superintendents and supervisors. Because it is unrefuted that these professional/technical employees are performing non-supervisory functions, hence considered admitted, they should be classified, at least for purposes of this case, as rank and file employees.
Consequently, these professional/technical employees cannot be allowed to join a union composed of supervisors.
Conversely, supervisory employees cannot join a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. This is provided in Art. 245 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715
Toyota Motor Corp. v. TMCPLU (268 S 573)
FACTS: Respondent filed a petition for certificate election praying that it be certified as sole and exclusive Bargaining representative of EEs composed of rank-&-file and supervisory EEs of petitioner. But such petition was challenged on the ground of “appropriateness” of the BU since supervisory and rank-&file were lumped together.
ISSUE/S: WON the BU is an ABU
Addie Celerian * Amor Venenoso * Draei Dumalanta * Ellan Cipriano Ingrid Prado * Mary Ang * Rica Casiquin * Sam Santos
HELD: No. Because supervisory and rank-&file were lumped/mixed together. No mutuality or unity of interests in the BU of such mixture.
Belyca Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja (168 S 184)
FACTS: ALU sought to be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the workers in the integrated business of Belyca Corp comprising piggery, poulty, agricultural crops, supermarket and cinemas ISSUE/S: WON the BU composed of , poulty, agricultural crops, supermarket and cinemas is an ABU
HELD: No. It is beyond question that the employees of the livestock and agro division of petitioner corporation perform work entirely different from those performed by employees in the supermarts and cinema. Among others, the noted difference are: their working conditions, hours of work, rates of pay, including the categories of their positions and employment status. As stated by petitioner corporation in its position paper, due to the nature of the business in which its livestock-agro division is engaged very few of its employees in the division are permanent, the overwhelming majority of which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees (Rollo, p. 26). Definitely, they have very little in common with the employees of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the employees of petitioner in its integrated business concerns cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of interest.
2.3. Fixing the ABU
v Labor laws did not provide criteria for fixing ABU (apart from the descriptive word in Art. 255 “appropriate”) v Baic test of BU’s acceptability: WON it is fundamentally
the combination which will best assure to all EEs the exercise of their CB rights.
v Rothenberg’s fundamental factors:
Ø (1) will of employees (Globe Doctrine);
§ The express will/desire of the EEs may be considered in determining the ABU
§ It sanctions the holding of series of elections, not for the purpose of determining the CBAgent but for the specific purpose of permitting the EEs in each of the several categories to selct the group which chooses as the CBU.
§ Case: Kapisanan v. Yard Crew Union (109 Phil. 1143)
FACTS: Kapisanan filed a petition praying that it be certified as the exclusive Bargaining Agent in Manila Railroad Co. (MRR). CIR promulgated a decision declaring 3 units appropriate: engine crew, train crew and the unit of all the rest of the company (to which Kapnisanan was certified). Both Kapisanan and MRR opposed the separation of the units. CIR thus issued an order to hold a plebiscite among the 3 grps. To determine WON they desire to be separated from the unit of all the rest of the co.
personnel.
ISSUE/S: Is the order of the CIR contrary to law?
HELD: No. "the desires of the employees" is one of the factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. The respondent Court was simply interested "in the verification of the evidence already placed on record and submitted wherein the workers have signed manifestations and resolutions of their desire to be separated from Kapisanan."
Certainly, no one would deny the respondent court's right of full investigation in arriving at a correct and conclusive finding of fact in order to deny or grant the conclusive findings of fact in order to deny or grant the petitions for certification election. On the contrary, all respondent court, or any court for that matter, to investigate before acting, to do justice to the parties concerned. And one way of determining the will or desire of the employees is what the respondent court had suggested: a plebiscite — carried by secret ballot. A plebiscite not to be conducted by the Department of Labor, as contemplated in a certification election under Sec. 12 of the Magna Charter of Labor, R.A.
No. 875, but by the respondent court itself. As well as observed by the respondent court, "the votes of workers one way or the other, in these cases will not by any chance choose the agent or unit which will represent them anew, for precisely that is a matter that is within the issues raised in these petitions for certification".
Ø (2) affinity and unity of employee's interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions;
(Community of interest rule)
§ The proper Bargaining unit may be fixed on the basis of the affinity and the unity of the EEs’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions.
§ Cases
Alhambra Cigar v. Kapisanan (107 S 23)
FACTS: Alhambra Employees' Association (AEA) filed a petition praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees in the administrative, sales and dispensary departments. Alhambra Cigar and Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa sa Alhambra (FOITAF) opposed the petition on the ground that the unit sought to be represented by AEA is not an appropriate CBU since it is the employer unit which is the appropriate CBU and not the smaller unit sought by the AEA
ISSUE/S: WON the separate bargaining unit composed of EEs in the administrative, sales and dispensary departments would constitute an appropriate CBU
HELD: The SC held that the employees in the administrative, sales and dispensary departments can form their own bargaining unit separate and distinct from those involved in the production and maintenance. They have a community of interest which justifies their formation or existence as a separate appropriate collective bargaining unit. The existing CBA covers only those in the production and maintenance.
Addie Celerian * Amor Venenoso * Draei Dumalanta * Ellan Cipriano Ingrid Prado * Mary Ang * Rica Casiquin * Sam Santos
UP v. Ferrer-Calleja (211 S 451)
FACTS: ONAPUP filed a petition for certification election among the non-academic EEs of UP; thereafter another union (all UP workers union) intervened in the proceedings alleging that its membership covers both academic and non-academic personnel and it aims to unite all UP rank-&-file EEs in 1 union. UP expressed it’s view that there should be separate unions.
ISSUE/S: WON it is proper to create separate bargaining units for academic and non-academic EEs
HELD: In the case at bar, the University employees may, as already suggested, quite easily be categorized into two general classes:
one, the group composed of employees whose functions are non-academic, i.e., janitors, messengers, typists, clerks, receptionists, carpenters, electricians, grounds-keepers, chauffeurs, mechanics, plumbers;
two, the group made up of those performing academic functions, i.e., full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors — who may be judges or government executives — and research, extension and professorial staff.
Not much reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality of interests which justifies the formation of a single collective bargaining unit is wanting between the academic and non-academic personnel of the university. It would seem obvious that teachers would find very little in common with the University clerks and other non-academic employees as regards responsibilities and functions, working conditions, compensation rates, social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural activities, etc. On the contrary, the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working conditions of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The formation of two separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the rank-and-file non-academic personnel, and the second, of the rank-and-file academic employees, is the set-up that will best assure to all the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.
Ø (3) prior collective bargaining history; and
§ It is also a factor but not a decisive factor
§ It can be disregarded/brushed aside in the ff cases (and thus, only the prevailing factors should control the determination of the bargaining unit):
• Where circumstances had been so altered
• Where the reciprocal relationship of the ER and particular bargaining agent has been so changed that the past mutual experience can no longer be considered
as a reliable guide to the present determination of the bargaining unit
♦ CASE:NAFTU v. Mainit Lumber (192 S 598)
Even if for several years, the sawmill and the logging division have always been treated as separate units in the company (MALDECO), a single unit can still be created in the basis of “community of interests” rule. Moreover, while the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interests. This is so because "the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights." Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. There may be difference as to the nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.
Ø (4) employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary employees (Similarity of employment status rule)
§ This rule requires that temporary, seasonal and probationary employees be grouped as 1 category and treat them separately from permanent employees.
§ Case: PLASLU v. CIR (110 Phil. 176)
FACTS: AWA and PLASLU are contending unions. CIR ordered to hold a certification election to determine which will be the sole bargaining agent of the ER (San Carlos Milling Co.) PLASLU question 242 ballots on the ground that they were cast by stevedores and piece-rate workers who were employed on casual/day to day basis, who could not properly be included in the bargaining unit it seeks to represent
ISSUE/S: Is PLASLU correct?
HELD: Yes. CIR should’ve excluded the 242 votes cast by by stevedores and piece-rate workers who were employed on casual/day to day basis, who could not properly be included in the bargaining unit PLASLU seeks to represent.
Note that these temporary workers had a work of different nature from those labourers permitted to vote; they have no reasonable basis for continued or renewed employment for any appreciable substantial time- not to mention the nature of work they perform – they cannot be considered to have such mutuality of interest as to justify in the bargaining unit composed of regular EEs.
2.4 The One Company-One Union Policy
v GR: LC discourages proliferation of unions in an establishment, unless circumstances otherwise require Ø RATIO: greater mutual benefits which the parties
could derive, especially in case of EES whose
Addie Celerian * Amor Venenoso * Draei Dumalanta * Ellan Cipriano Ingrid Prado * Mary Ang * Rica Casiquin * Sam Santos
bargaining strength could undeniably be enhanced by their unity and solidarity but diminished by their disunity, division and dissension.
Ø Mere fact that certain group of EEs perform functions different from the other EEs does not warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit
§ Variety of tasks is to be expected
§ It would not be in the interest of sound labor-management relations if each group of EEs assigned to a specialized function or section would decide to break away from their fellow-workers and form their own separate bargaining unit - this could only lead to confusion, discord and labor strife, there being no substantial differences in their functions.
v EXCEPTIONS
Ø (1) When supervisory EES organize themselves into a bargaining unit separate and distinct from bargaining unit of rank-&-file EES (basis: art. 245, LC – prohibitjng the supervisory EEs from joining rank-&-file EEs)
Ø (2) Where the ER unit has to give way to other bargaining units, like craft unit, plant unit or subdivision unit. (e.g. In Airline company – cabin attendants and pilots different from ground personnel; In Educational institution – teaching and non-teaching personnel)
Ø (3) When a certain class of EEs are excluded from the coverage of the bargaining unit. (Ratio:
separate bargaining unit must be formed so as not to unduly deprive them of the right to collectively bargain; e.g. exclusion of the daily paid EEs from bargaining unit of those monthly paid.)
Ø CASES:
Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja (214 S 174) FACTS: CFW is the certified CR of daily-paid rank-&-file EEs of Knitjoy. While later and CFW were negotiating for renewal of their CBA, KMEU filed a petition for certification election among the monthly-paid rank-&-file EEs of knitjoy.
CFW challenged such.
ISSUE/S: WON monthly-paid rank-&-file EEs of Knitjoy can constitute an ABU separate and distinct from existing unit composed of daily-paid rank-&-file EEs
HELD: Yes. There can be separate bargaining unit on the basis of this. The regular monthly-paid rank-&-file EEs of Knitjoy were never included in the scope of the bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-&-file EEs of Knitjoy
San Miguel Corp. EEs Union v. Confessor (262 S 81) FACTS: SMCEA is the collective bargaining agent of the rank-&-file EEs of SMC in its 4 operating divisions (beer, packaging, feeds & livestock, Magnolia and agri-business).
The last 2 divisions became 2 separate and distinct corporations –Magnolia Corp and San Miguel Foods Corp.
SMCEA insisted that bargaining unit should still include the EEs of the spun-off corporations. SMC claimed that EEs
who moved to Magnolia Corp., can no longer be included because they automatically cease to be EEs of SMC.
ISSUE/S: WON the bargaining unit at SMC should include the EEs of Magnolia Corp. and San Miguel Foods, Inc.
HELD: No. There are 2 distinct corporations in the case at bar. Indubitably, therefore, Magnolia and the feeds and livestock divisions became distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. Thus, cannot be joined in a single bargaining unit.
2.5. Separate Bargaining Units for Every Corporation v 2 corporations cannot be treated as a single bargaining
unit.
Ø RATIO: 2 companies are distinct entities with separate juridical personalities
§ Not a justification for piercing the corporate veil:
• Mere fact that their business are related and that some of EEs of 1 corp. were original EEs of the other
• Mere fact that some EEs of 1 corporation are the same persons manning and providing auxiliary services to other corp.
and that physical plants, offices are situated in same compound