Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. v. Laguesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. (AG&P) hires project employees through Project Worker/Reliever Employment Agreements. On June 8, 1990, AG&P executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with AG&P United Rank & File Association (URFA), the sole bargaining agent for regular rank-and-file employees. On June 29, 1990, respondent Lakas ng Manggagawa sa AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor (LAKAS-NFL) filed a petition for certification election among the regular non-project employees of AG&P's Steel and Marine Structure (SMSG) at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication Yard (BMFY). Procedural History: The Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election among the regular "Project Workers" of AG&P-SMSG. AG&P appealed to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On October 26, 1990, AG&P issued regular employment appointments to 691 alleged project employees. The DOLE Undersecretary denied AG&P's appeal. Subsequently, 691 alleged project employees went on strike, which was settled when AG&P agreed to regularize all remaining alleged project employees with at least one year of service. On December 6, 1990, URFA informed AG&P of the admission of 410 regular project employees into its membership. AG&P filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the employees were regular and covered by the existing CBA, but this was denied by the DOLE Undersecretary. The Petition: AG&P filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the DOLE Undersecretary's Resolution and Order, arguing that the contract-bar rule applied and that the bargaining unit sought by LAKAS-NFL had ceased to exist due to the regularization of the project workers.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Undersecretary acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution and Order, failing to hold that the contract-bar rule applies, considering the regularization of project employees and the existing CBA. Whether respondent Undersecretary acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution and Order, failing to consider the supervening fact that the bargaining unit of the alleged regular project workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the regularization of all the alleged project workers with at least one year of service.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The assailed Resolution of November 22, 1990, and the Order dated December 11, 1990, are annulled and set aside. The temporary restraining order issued is made permanent. Costs against respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the contract-bar rule and the cessation of the bargaining unit due to regularization: The Court found the petitioner's contentions meritorious. Article II, Section 1 of the CBA between AG&P and URFA defined the appropriate bargaining unit to include regular rank-and-file employees and those who may hereafter acquire such status, explicitly excluding workers hired as project employees. However, the Court noted that the subsequent regularization of all regular project employees with at least one year of service, and their subsequent membership with URFA, meant that these employees were now considered regular employees by operation of law. Consequently, they were included in the appropriate bargaining unit covered by the existing CBA. This regularization effectively caused the bargaining unit that respondent LAKAS-NFL sought to represent to cease to exist. On the prohibition of certification election during the term of a CBA: The Court emphasized that Article 232 of the Labor Code prohibits the Bureau from entertaining petitions for certification election that disturb the administration of duly registered existing CBAs, except under specific articles. Furthermore, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations states that a petition for certification election can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of a duly registered CBA. The existence of a duly registered CBA, covering the employees in question, therefore bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification election outside the prescribed 60-day window. To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent of ensuring industrial peace during the term of a CBA.
Main Doctrine
A duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) bars the filing of a petition for certification election, except within the 60-day period prior to its expiration, provided that the employees sought to be represented are already covered by the existing CBA. The regularization of project employees and their subsequent membership in the union representing regular employees effectively includes them in the existing bargaining unit, thus ceasing the existence of the unit sought to be represented by another union.