SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA SHOEMART-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR

Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Shoemart versus Shoemart

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Shoemart-National Federation of Labor against SM Shoemart, Inc., the Shoemart Employees Union, the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, and the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Director's order remanding the certification election case for further hearing, and to compel the holding of a certification election among the rank and file workers of SM Shoemart, Inc. The case matters because it fixes the standard for when the Bureau of Labor Relations may order a certification election despite a failure to meet the thirty percent signature requirement, and it explains how the contract bar rule operates against a prematurely signed collective bargaining agreement.

Procedural History

On May 25, 1984, the petitioner filed with the Med-Arbiter Section of the National Capital Region a petition for certification election of the employees of SM Shoemart, Inc. The Shoemart Employees Union and SM Shoemart, Inc. opposed it, and the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions moved to intervene. After due hearing, the Med-Arbiter issued a resolution dated September 4, 1984 granting the petition, ruling that the contract bar rule did not apply because the new collective bargaining agreement was signed prematurely, and that the petition was supported by more than thirty percent of the labor force. The Med-Arbiter, however, denied the intervention of the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions. On appeal, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations ordered the case remanded to the Med-Arbiter for further hearing, so that all questions of fact raised in the representation proceedings could be fully threshed out. The petitioner then went to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus.

Facts

On May 25, 1984, Sandigan ng Manggagawa sa Shoemart-National Federation of Labor filed a petition for certification election among the employees of SM Shoemart, Inc. The Shoemart Employees Union and the company opposed the petition on two grounds. First, the petition was not signed by thirty percent of the establishment's labor force. Second, a new collective bargaining agreement entered into on October 19, 1983 between the company and the Shoemart Employees Union as exclusive bargaining agent barred the election under the contract bar rule.

The Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions moved to intervene to justify its right, as one of the contending unions, to participate in the election. After due hearing, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition. He ruled that the contract bar rule did not apply because the new collective bargaining agreement was signed prematurely, more than six months before the expiration of the previous agreement on May 31, 1984. He also found that even disregarding nineteen supposedly duplicated signatures and two signatures of persons allegedly not employees, the petition was supported by 1,244 out of 3,347 employees, or more than thirty percent of the labor force. The Med-Arbiter denied the intervention of the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions because no representative appeared at the hearing of the motion and the intervention lacked the required signatures.

On appeal, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations acted on the company's allegations of forgeries, illegible entries, multiple entries, and signatures of non-employees in the two sets of signatures, and on the claim that the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions was not given the opportunity to substantiate its bid to participate. The Director ordered the case remanded to the Med-Arbiter for further hearing. The Supreme Court set aside that resolution.

Issues

• Whether or not the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations gravely abused his discretion in remanding the case to the Med-Arbiter for further hearing on the thirty percent signature requirement.
• Whether or not a certification election should be ordered among the rank and file workers of SM Shoemart, Inc. despite the failure to meet the thirty percent signature requirement.
• Whether or not the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions should be included as a choice in the certification election.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision. It applies the thirty percent signature requirement for a certification election petition and the contract bar rule, and it relies on the doctrine laid down in Scout Albano versus Noriel, which the Court states as follows:

The Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement.

This doctrine bears directly on the case because it authorizes the holding of the election even if the signature requirement is not fully satisfied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court set aside the resolution of the Director. The issue of whether the petitioners had complied with the thirty percent signature rule had already been resolved in the proceedings before the Med-Arbiter. To remand the case for the purpose of giving the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions the opportunity to substantiate its claim that it could comply with the requirement would only delay the holding of an election to finally determine the true bargaining representative of the employees.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the thirty percent requirement. The Court noted that no certification election had been held at SM Shoemart, Inc. for the last thirteen years, since 1971.

On the third issue, the Court included the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions as one of the choices in the certification election, along with the petitioner, the Shoemart Labor Union, and No Union.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the Bureau of Labor Relations, in the exercise of sound discretion, may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the thirty percent signature requirement. Second, the contract bar rule does not apply where the collective bargaining agreement is signed prematurely, that is, more than six months before the expiration of the previous agreement. Third, a remand for further hearing that would only delay the holding of an election to determine the true bargaining representative is improper where the factual issue has already been resolved below.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations was directed to call a certification election among the rank and file workers of SM Shoemart, Inc. with the choices Sandigan ng mga Manggagawa sa SM-National Federation of Labor, Shoemart Labor Union, Philippine Association for Free Labor Unions, and No Union.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Bureau of Labor Relations may, in the exercise of sound discretion, order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the thirty percent requirement. Examiners like to use this case to test the contract bar rule and the discretion of the Bureau of Labor Relations in representation proceedings.