Associated Trade Unions v. Noriel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Associated Trade Unions-ATU (ATU), sought a certiorari petition against respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel of the Bureau of Labor Relations. ATU alleged that Director Noriel acted with grave abuse of discretion by disregarding the existence of a certified collective bargaining contract between ATU and the employer, R. B. Enterprises and R. B. Steel Industries, Inc., and ordering a certification election. Procedural History: Director Noriel initially ordered a certification election on May 28, 1977. This Court issued a restraining order, requiring respondents to comment. The Solicitor General, on behalf of Director Noriel, clarified that a petition for certification election by respondent Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR) was filed one month before ATU's application for certification of the collective bargaining contract. The certification of the contract was provisional and ATU failed to disclose the pending petition for certification election to the Bureau. The Petition: ATU contended that Director Noriel acted arbitrarily and in violation of due process by reversing his earlier decision and ordering a certification election despite the existence of a certified collective bargaining contract.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Director Carmelo C. Noriel acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of due process in ordering a certification election despite the existence of a certified collective bargaining contract. Whether a certified collective bargaining contract, entered into pending a petition for certification election and without disclosure of such pendency, can legally bar a certification election.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order is lifted, and the certification election must be held forthwith. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and due process: The Court held that respondent Director Noriel did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General's comment clarified that ATU failed to disclose the pending petition for certification election filed by FUR when it requested the certification of its collective bargaining agreement. This failure to deal with the Bureau with candor meant that the Bureau could not have properly assessed the situation. The Court emphasized that the policy of the New Labor Code favors holding certification elections as the most democratic means of determining the exclusive bargaining agent, and circumventing this policy through non-disclosure is unacceptable. Therefore, no due process question arises as the Director's actions were based on the facts as clarified. On the legal effect of a certified collective bargaining contract pending a certification election: The Court reiterated its consistent stance that a collective bargaining contract, especially when entered into under circumstances that circumvent the policy favoring certification elections, does not serve as a legal obstacle to such an election. The Court cited several previous decisions, including Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Bureau of Labor Relations, General Textiles Allied Workers Association v. Director of Bureau of Labor Relations, and Vassar Industries Employees Union v. Estrella, which established that a pending petition for certification election renders any subsequent agreement entered into by management with a labor union unable to serve as the chosen collective bargaining representative. The Court stressed that any other view would render nugatory the statutory policy to favor certification elections as the means of ascertaining the workers' true will. The Court also noted that in cases where a new collective bargaining agreement is entered into pending a certification election, its terms should be respected until a new representative is chosen and a new contract is negotiated, to avoid prejudicing the workers.
Main Doctrine
A collective bargaining agreement certified while a petition for certification election is pending, especially if the pendency was not disclosed, cannot serve as a legal obstacle to the holding of a certification election, as such action may constitute grave abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. The policy favoring certification elections to determine the true will of the workers must be upheld.