Barrera v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juan S. Barrera, doing business as Machinery and Steel Products Engineering (MASPE), filed a motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance a certification election proceeding. The motion was based on allegations of unfair labor practice against the MASPE Workers' Union, one of the contending parties, which included failure to bargain collectively and an illegal strike characterized by force, violence, and intimidation. Petitioner sought to have the union and its members declared guilty of unfair labor practice, the strike declared illegal, and the union consequently stripped of its rights and its members deemed to have lost their employment status. Procedural History: The respondent Court of Industrial Relations denied the motion to dismiss, stating the grounds alleged did not appear to be indubitable. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: This petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court seeking to annul the denial of the motion to dismiss or hold in abeyance the certification election.
Issue(s)
Whether a pending certification election proceeding may be dismissed or held in abeyance at the instance of the employer due to an alleged unfair labor practice case filed against one of the contending labor unions. Whether acts of violence during a strike automatically result in the loss of employment for the strikers, thereby disqualifying them from participating in a certification election.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the appealed order of the Court of Industrial Relations is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissing or holding in abeyance a certification election due to a pending unfair labor practice case filed by the employer: The Supreme Court held that a pending certification election proceeding cannot be dismissed or held in abeyance at the employer's instance due to an alleged unfair labor practice case filed against a labor union. The Court reasoned that such a postponement could be used as a tool, intentionally or unintentionally, to prevent a free expression of the employees' will regarding their bargaining representative. Allowing the employer to dictate the timing based on its own unfair labor practice case would undermine the purpose of certification elections and could dilute the strength of labor organizations. The Court emphasized that the law contemplates the participation of all employees in such elections, and unwarranted reductions in participation should be avoided, even under the guise of resolving a pending unfair labor practice case. The principle lex dilationes semper exhorret (the law abhors delay) was invoked. On the issue of whether acts of violence during a strike automatically result in loss of employment: The Court clarified that even if a strike is tainted with violence, it does not automatically follow that all strikers are disqualified from participating in a certification election due to automatic loss of employment. The Court reiterated its ruling in Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., stating that responsibility for violent acts should be individual and not collective, unless the violence is pervasive, widespread, and consistently resorted to as a matter of policy. The Court noted that in the present case, injuries were sustained on both sides, indicating that management also played a role in the confrontation, and that not every form of violence suffices to declare a strike illegal or cause automatic loss of employment. The Court also referenced Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., acknowledging that picketing can be "inherently explosive."
Main Doctrine
A pending unfair labor practice case filed by an employer against a labor union should not be a ground to dismiss or hold in abeyance a certification election proceeding, as such a delay could be used to prevent a free expression of the employees' will and could dilute the strength of the labor organization.