Barbizon Philippines, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor
G.R. No. 113204-05 (September 16, 1996)
Facts:
On June 27, 1988, Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Philippine Lingerie Corporation) filed a petition for a certification election among its rank-and-file employees. Two unions, namely the Philippine Lingerie Workers Union-ALAB and Buklod ng Manggagawa ng Philippine Lingerie Corporation, sought recognition. During pre-election conferences, the Philippine Lingerie Workers Union-ALAB moved to exclude certain employees they claimed held supervisory positions. However, on July 28, 1988, Med-Arbiter Rasidali C. Abdullah denied this motion for lack of merit. The Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirmed this decision on November 16, 1988, and subsequent motions for reconsideration by the Philippine Lingerie Workers Union-ALAB were also denied.
A certification election was held on May 3, 1989, with the results showing Buklod ng Manggagawa ng Philippine Lingerie Corporation receiving the majority of votes. The Philippine Lingerie Workers Union-ALAB filed an election protest, which was denied, and the BLR confirmed that the employees in question were not managerial employees but rather rank-and-file workers.
While the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Barbizon and Buklod was still in effect, several employees formed the Nagkakaisang Supervisors ng Barbizon Philippines, Inc. (NSBPI) and the Nagkakaisang Excluded Monthly Paid Employees ng Barbizon, Inc. (NEMPEBPI), claiming exclusion from the existing CBA. Both unions filed separate petitions for certification elections, which were initially dismissed. NSBPI appealed, and on December 29, 1992, the Undersecretary of Labor denied the appeal for lack of merit. NSBPI filed a motion for reconsideration, which led to the issuance of a new order on February 11, 1993, granting the motion and directing a certification election among the excluded employees.
Barbizon Philippines, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Undersecretary of Labor, arguing that the NSBPI could not form a supervisory union as its members were rank-and-file employees and that the existing CBA barred the certification election.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the NSBPI, composed of employees designated as "supervisors," could legally form a union and seek representation status for collective bargaining purposes.
- Whether the existing CBA, which covered the rank-and-file employees, barred the certification election petition filed by NSBPI.
Arguments:
Petitioner (Barbizon Philippines, Inc.):
- The employees designated as "supervisors" cannot form a supervisory union as they are classified as rank-and-file employees.
- The existing CBA with Buklod serves as a bar to the certification election petition since it already represents the appropriate bargaining unit.
- The Undersecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the certification election, reversing the BLR's final ruling that the employees were not supervisory.
Respondents (NSBPI and NEMPEBPI):
- The employees in question were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit covered by the existing CBA, thus justifying their right to form a separate union and seek representation.
- The petition for certification election was not questioning the majority status of Buklod but was directed towards a separate bargaining unit of excluded employees.
- The right to self-organization and collective bargaining is constitutionally guaranteed and should not be curtailed by the existing CBA.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Barbizon Philippines, Inc. The Court held that the status of the employees as "supervisors" was not the issue; rather, it was their exclusion from the bargaining unit represented by Buklod that warranted the formation of a separate union. The Court emphasized that the right to self-organization and collective bargaining is a fundamental labor right protected by the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the existing CBA did not bar the certification election because the employees represented by NSBPI were not covered by the CBA. The Court reiterated that the exclusion of these employees from the bargaining unit deprived them of their right to self-organization, which is a compelling reason to allow the certification election.
The Court also clarified that the "contract-bar rule" did not apply in this case, as the petitioning union was not challenging the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent but was instead seeking representation for a distinct group of employees. The Court concluded that the employer lacks standing to dispute the certification election, which is solely a concern of the workers.
Significant Legal Principles Established:
- The right to self-organization and collective bargaining is a fundamental labor right protected by the Constitution.
- Employees excluded from a collective bargaining agreement have the right to form their own union and seek representation for collective bargaining.
- The "one union-one company" policy has exceptions, particularly when distinct classes of employees are excluded from the existing bargaining unit.