Yokohama v. Yokohama Employees Union
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Yokohama Employees Union (Union) filed a petition for certification election among the rank-and-file employees of petitioner Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. (Yokohama). The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) ordered an election with "Yokohama Employees’ Union" and "No Union" as choices. The election results showed the Union obtaining 131 votes and "No Union" obtaining 117 votes, with 151 challenged votes. Yokohama challenged 78 votes cast by dismissed employees, while the Union challenged 68 newly regularized rank-and-file employees and 5 supervisor-trainees. Yokohama formalized its protest regarding the eligibility of the 78 dismissed employees. Procedural History: The Med-Arbiter resolved the protests, decreeing that the appreciation of the votes of 65 dismissed employees contesting their dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) would be suspended until final disposition of their complaint. The votes of 68 newly regularized rank-and-file employees were to be appreciated. On appeal, the DOLE Acting Secretary modified the Med-Arbiter's order, stating that the votes of dismissed employees who contested their dismissal before the NLRC shall be appreciated in the final tabulation, while the votes of the 68 newly regularized rank-and-file employees shall be excluded. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DOLE Acting Secretary's decision, holding that the 78 employees who contested their dismissal were entitled to vote, but disallowed the votes of the 68 newly regularized employees as they were not on the voters' list. The appellate court also noted that Yokohama's insistence on their inclusion suggested an intent to create a company union and ruled Yokohama had no right to intervene. The union's handwritten manifestation was deemed substantial compliance with the rule on protest. The Petition: Yokohama appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the disallowance of the votes of the 68 newly regularized employees, the sufficiency of the union's manifestation, and the allowance of the votes of dismissed employees.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing the appreciation of the votes of sixty-eight newly regularized rank-and-file employees. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the DOLE Secretary's declaration that the Union's manifestation on the day of the certification election was sufficient compliance with the rule on formalization of protests. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the appreciation of votes of all employees who were previously dismissed for serious misconduct and abandonment of work, causes unrelated to the certification election.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that dismissed employees who contested their dismissal before the NLRC were qualified voters as their cases were still pending at the time of the election. The Court also noted that the 68 votes of the newly regularized employees, even if counted in favor of "No Union," would not alter the outcome of the election, and that the certification election was already a fait accompli with the employees having chosen the respondent union as their bargaining representative.
Ratio Decidendi
On the exclusion of the votes of newly regularized employees: The Court found no reversible error in the exclusion of the votes of the 68 newly regularized rank-and-file employees. The Court of Appeals noted that these employees were not included in the voters' list submitted during the pre-election conference. The appellate court also observed that Yokohama's insistence on their inclusion raised suspicion of an attempt to create a company union, and that Yokohama had no right to intervene in the certification election. The Court also deemed the union's handwritten manifestation during the election as substantial compliance with the rule on protest. On the sufficiency of the union's manifestation: The Court found that the union's handwritten manifestation during the election constituted substantial compliance with the rule on protest. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals, which also noted that Yokohama's insistence on the inclusion of the 68 newly regularized employees was suspicious and that Yokohama had no right to intervene in the certification election. The Court's focus was on the substantive right of employees to choose their bargaining representative, and procedural technicalities that did not prejudice substantial rights were not given undue weight. On the appreciation of the votes of dismissed employees: The Court affirmed the ruling that dismissed employees who contested their dismissal before the NLRC were qualified voters. This is based on Section 2, Rule XII of the rules implementing Book V of the Labor Code, which was in force during the election. This rule clearly allows a dismissed employee to vote if the case contesting the dismissal is still pending at the time of the election. The Court noted that the cases filed by these employees were indeed pending at the time of the certification election on November 23, 2001. Furthermore, even the new rule explicitly states that without a final judgment declaring the dismissal valid, dismissed employees are eligible voters. Therefore, there was no reversible error in ordering the appreciation of the votes of the dismissed employees.
Main Doctrine
Dismissed employees who have contested the legality of their dismissal in a forum of appropriate jurisdiction at the time of the issuance of the order for the conduct of a certification election are considered qualified voters, unless their dismissal was declared valid in a final judgment at the time of the conduct of the certification election.