Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (September Convention) v. Director Pura Ferrer Calleja
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: A petition for certification election was filed by respondent Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hundred Island Chemical Corporation (Samahan) with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). Petitioner Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (September Convention) (PAFLU) filed a motion to intervene, accompanied by the written consent of 20% of the rank-and-file employees. Respondent Katipunan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMAPI) also filed a motion to intervene but without the required written consent. Procedural History: The Med-Arbiter denied KAMAPI's motion for intervention due to the lack of written consent but allowed PAFLU's inclusion. KAMAPI appealed this order to the Director of the BLR. The Director of the BLR issued an order allowing KAMAPI to be included as one of the contending unions in the certification election, stating that the best forum to determine union support is through a certification election. The Petition: PAFLU filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the order of the Director of the BLR.
Issue(s)
Whether KAMAPI should be allowed to participate in a certification election through a motion for intervention without a prior showing of at least 20% support expressed in the written consent of the rank-and-file employees. Whether the respondent Director committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order allowing KAMAPI's intervention.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Temporary Restraining Order dated 24 August 1987 is lifted. The order of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dated 27 July 1987 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether KAMAPI should be allowed to participate in a certification election through a motion for intervention without a prior showing of at least 20% support expressed in the written consent of the rank-and-file employees: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court clarified that the requisite written consent of at least 20% of the workers in the bargaining unit applies only to petitioners for certification election, not to motions for intervention. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 6, Rule V of the Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 111 and Article 258 of the Labor Code clearly state that the 20% support requirement pertains to the filing of a petition for certification election by a legitimate labor organization in an unorganized establishment. Nowhere in these provisions is there a requirement for a motion for intervention to be accompanied by a similar written consent. The purpose of the 20% requirement is to ensure that the petitioning union has a substantial interest and that a considerable number of workers desire their representation for collective bargaining purposes. The essence of a certification election is to settle definitively which union is preferred by the workers for representation. Therefore, as long as the motion for intervention is properly and timely filed and would not cause injustice, it should be allowed, especially since the original applicant had already met the 20% requirement. On the issue of whether the respondent Director committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order allowing KAMAPI's intervention: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that the Director's order was in line with the legal provisions governing certification elections and interventions. The Director correctly interpreted the law to mean that the 20% consent requirement is exclusive to the initial petition for certification election. Allowing KAMAPI to intervene, under these circumstances, serves the fundamental right of labor to organize and to have their chosen representative determined through a certification election. The delay in holding the election, as argued by respondent Samahan, would only defeat this constitutional right. The Court's decision to allow intervention aligns with the principle that certification elections are the proper venue to ascertain the workers' choice of bargaining agent.
Main Doctrine
A motion for intervention in a certification election does not require the submission of the 20% written consent of the rank-and-file employees, as this requirement pertains only to petitions for certification election filed by a legitimate labor organization in an unorganized establishment.