G. R. No, L-18848. April 23, 1963
ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU), ACOJE MINES (COMPANY, AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.
CONCEPCION, J.:
“the National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the Acoje Mining
Company at Santa Cruz, Zambales, excluding supervisors, confidential
employees and security guards, for purposes of collective bargaining
under Republic Act 875 as regards to wages, rates of pay, hours of work
and other conditions of employment.”
Pursuant to an Order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated May 19, 1961, and a Resolution thereof en banc,
dated June 8, 1961, the Department of Labor, through the Bureau of
Labor Relations, conducted on June 9, 1961, a ”consent election” among
the workers of the aforementioned Company, in which five (5) labor
unions- participated, namely, the Acoje United Workers’ Union, the
Acoje Labor Union (PELTA), the Acoje Labor Union (PLUM), respondent
National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU), and petitioner Acoje
Workers’ Union. On June 21, 1961, the Department of Labor certified
that the result of the election was as follows.:
No. of Valid Votes cast No. of Spoiled Ballots No. of Challenged Ballots Total No. of Votes Cast No. of Votes Cast for: Acoje United Workers Union Acoje Labor Union-Pelta. Acoje Labor Union-Plum National Mines & Allied Workers’ Union Acoje Workers’ Union. No Union desired
____
Prior thereto or on June 12, 1961, petitioner Union as which had
been defeated by respondent Union by a margin of 282 votes-had filed a
motion to invalidate said election upon several grounds. After due
hearing, the lower court issued, on July 21, 1961, the order appealed
from, holding that said motion was without merit, and certifying
respondent Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the
workers of the Company. A reconsideration of said order having been
denied by the Court en banc, petitioner interposed the present appeal
by certiorari, and now maintains that the lower court should have
invalidated the aforementioned election for the same was “the result of
acts of terrorism, force, threat and intimidation employed by” agents
of respondent Union.
More specifically, petitioner alleges that, “if heard or given its day in Court” it could have proven that: (a)
not less than 310 workers of the Company were threatened the night
immediately preceding the election by agents of respondent Union
individually “to cast their vote for said Union-or else;” b)
the agents of respondent Union were even aided by the Municipal Mayor
of Santa Cruz, Zambales, and his policemen, and, as a consequence, said
Municipal Mayor was suspended from office; c) the acts
performed by said agents of respondent Union “resulted into unlawful
disorder, damaged belongings, and physical injuries suffered by the
workers”; d) many workers were unable to vote for justified causes; and e) many workers, subject of unfair labor practice case actually, pending in Court, were not allowed to vote, contrary to law.
The last two (2) grounds are clearly untenable. It appears that on
April 24, 1961, the labor unions concerned agreed, not only to the
holding of the aforementioned election, but, also, to the use of the
Company payroll of March 31, 1961, as the basis for determining who are
qualified to vote subject to the approval of the lower court. On May 8,
1961, the Company presented its aforementioned payroll to said court
and stated the labor unions had been furnished copy thereof, at least
three (3) days prior thereto. Said labor unions were given an
opportunity to make their comments and observations on the list of
workers contained in the payroll and to ask or suggest the inclusion or
exclusion of names therein or therefrom. Petitioner’s representative
then stated that it would abide by whatever ruling the court may make
on the matter of inclusion and exclusion of voters. Indeed, on May 19,
1961, the court issued the corresponding order for the holding of the
election and made its ruling on the question as to who were qualified
to vote, and petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of said
ruling, although two (2) other labor unions and the Company did so, and
their motions for reconsideration were denied by the Court en banc. Hence, petitioner may no longer contest the accuracy of the aforementioned voters’ list.
Pursuant thereto the Company had 1019 workers, excluding department
heads and foreman, but including 48 security guards. Excluding the
latter, there were, therefore, only 971 qualified voters. Of these, 904
had voted, so that only 67 qualified voters had failed to cast their
votes. If is obvious that this number plus the 19 ballots challenged in
the election are insufficient to offset the plurality of 282 votes
obtained by respondent Union.
In connection with the duress claimed to have been used upon the
voters it should be observed that in its motion dated June 12, 1961,
petitioner maintained that the election should be invalidated because
of alleged: a) insufficiency of the notice of said election; b) failure
to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the list of qualified voters;
c) inclusion among those who Voted “of confidential employees,
supervisors and security or police officers; d) failure of many workers to vote
due to said insufficient notice as well as the cases of violence that
occurred on the eve of election.” None of these grounds is now invoked
by petitioner herein. Worthy of notice is the fact that petitioner did
not claim that any voter had been coerced to vote for respondent Union.
In fact, in its supplemental motion of June 22, 1961, petitioner
made more specific allegations to bolster up its pretense “that the
election held on June 9, 1961, is inconclusive” because of the alleged
“failure of more than 300 workers to vote,” which, as above indicated,
is not a fact. It is true that the last ground—out of the seven
(7) —relied upon in the aforementioned supplemental motion was to the
effect that “there are many cases where the workers were threatened,
coerced and intimidated to vote for the NAMAWU.” But this general
allegation; without anything to indicate the number of workers
involved, without the supporting affidavit of any of them, and without
an offer to introduce their testimony or the testimony of any of them,
was—in the light of the attending circumstances—clearly insufficient to
warrant the invalidation of the aforementioned election.
As regards the disorder that had allegedly characterized the
election, the minutes thereof suffice to refute petitioner’s pretense.
We quote froni said minutes:’
”Balloting went on smoothly up to closing time at
7:00 p.m were was spirit of comraderie among the representative of the
contesting unions throughout the proceedings.“Peace and
order was maintained by the 18th PC Company at Iba, Zambales, graced by
the presence of the Provincial Commander in person.”
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.