Associated Trade Unions v. Trajano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a petition for a certification election filed by the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) among the rank-and-file workers of Baliwag Transit, Inc. The Associated Trade Unions (ATU) opposed this petition, asserting its status as the incumbent bargaining agent and the existence of a new collective bargaining agreement. Procedural History: TUPAS filed its petition for certification election on March 25, 1986. The med-arbiter granted the petition and ordered an election on May 14, 1986. This order was affirmed by the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on June 20, 1986, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on July 17, 1986. ATU then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order on August 20, 1986, to maintain the status quo. The Petition: ATU petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the lower labor authorities. ATU argued that the petition for certification election was defective for two reasons: (1) it lacked the required 30% consent of the workers at the time of filing, and (2) it was barred by a new collective bargaining agreement entered into by ATU and Baliwag Transit, Inc. on April 1, 1986.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certification election was defective for lack of the required 30% consent of the workers at the time of filing. Whether the new collective bargaining agreement entered into by ATU and the company barred the certification election.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the temporary restraining order is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the 30% consent requirement: The Court noted that the resolution of this issue was rendered academic by the amendment of Article 258 of the Labor Code by Executive Order No. 111, effective March 4, 1987. The amended Article 256, applicable to organized establishments like Baliwag Transit, Inc., no longer requires the 30% consent signatures for a petition for certification election. Instead, it mandates the med-arbiter to automatically order an election by secret ballot upon receipt and verification of the petition, provided it contains the necessary matters required by the implementing rules. The consent requirement is now only for unorganized establishments under Article 257, and it has been reduced to 20%. On the issue of the contract-bar rule: The Court acknowledged ATU's argument that the new CBA, concluded on April 1, 1986, should bar the certification election. However, the Court emphasized that the CBA was entered into after TUPAS had already filed its petition for certification election. The Court held that such a CBA cannot permanently preclude the commencement of negotiations by another union. To avoid prejudicing the workers, the Court ruled that the CBA would be given temporary effect, subject to the results of the certification election. If ATU wins, the CBA continues; if TUPAS wins, the CBA may be replaced. This interim arrangement aligns with previous rulings ensuring that the cause of labor does not suffer during inter-union disputes.
Main Doctrine
A collective bargaining agreement entered into after a petition for certification election has been filed and is pending resolution cannot serve as a bar to the certification election. However, the agreement may be given temporary effect until the certification election results are known.