DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION – ALU, RESPONDENTS.

Divine Word University of Tacloban versus Secretary of Labor and Employment

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction brought by the Divine Word University of Tacloban against the Secretary of Labor and Employment and the Divine Word University Employees Union, Associated Labor Union. The University assails the orders of the Secretary of Labor, which assumed jurisdiction over its labor dispute with the union, dismissed the University's petition for certification election, and directed the University to enter into a collective bargaining agreement by adopting the union's proposals. The case matters because it fixes the limits of the Secretary of Labor's extraordinary power to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes, and because it teaches when a certification election may be barred by a pending bargaining deadlock.

Procedural History

The dispute began in the Department of Labor and Employment. The union filed a notice of strike, and the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. A Med-Arbiter had earlier ordered a certification election upon the University's petition. The Secretary of Labor directed the Med-Arbiter to hold the certification election proceedings in abeyance. The Secretary then issued an order consolidating the entire labor dispute, including the certification election petition and the unfair labor practice complaints of both sides, and resolved them in a single order. The University moved for reconsideration, which the Acting Secretary of Labor denied. The University then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process.

Facts

On September 6, 1984, Med-Arbiter Bienvenido Elorcha certified the Divine Word University Employees Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the University. On March 7, 1985, the union submitted its collective bargaining proposals. The University replied and requested a preliminary conference. But two days before the scheduled conference, the union's resigned vice-president wrote a letter unilaterally withdrawing the proposals, and the conference was cancelled.

Almost three years later, the union, by then affiliated with the Associated Labor Union, requested a conference to continue negotiations. The University kept silent. The union sent a follow-up letter warning against acts of interference. Still the University did not reply. On April 25, 1988, the union filed a notice of strike on grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. Conciliation led to an agreement on May 10, 1988, but an hour before that agreement was concluded, the University had already filed a petition for certification election. The union submitted renewed proposals on May 19, 1988, which the University ignored.

The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and directed the striking workers to return to work. The Secretary later consolidated the entire dispute, including the certification election petition and the unfair labor practice complaints, and directed the parties to enter into a collective bargaining agreement by adopting the union's proposals. The Acting Secretary of Labor affirmed this order and declared the University in default for reneging on the May 10, 1988 agreement.

Issues

• Whether or not the Acting Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving the motion for reconsideration before the proceedings on the second notice of strike were terminated.
• Whether or not a certification election should have been ordered by the Secretary of Labor.
• Whether or not the University was denied due process.

Applicable Provisions

Article 258 of the Labor Code provides:

When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after hearing, order a certification election.

This provision governs the University's petition for certification election and the conditions under which an election may be ordered.

Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

When to file. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement submitted in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for certification election may be filed at any time. However, no certification election may be held within one year from the date of issuance of declaration of a final certification election result. Neither may a representation question be entertained if before the filing of a petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.

This rule bars a certification election where a bargaining deadlock involving a certified bargaining agent has already been submitted to conciliation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Acting Secretary of Labor did not commit grave abuse of discretion in resolving the motion for reconsideration ahead of the second notice of strike. Ideally, a single decision should settle all controversies arising from a labor dispute, in keeping with the principle of avoiding multiplicity of suits. But the exigencies of the case may demand that some matters be resolved ahead of others. The nature of the University's business demanded immediate action, lest the students and their parents be adversely affected. The motion for intervention of the independent faculty union was in effect denied by the dismissal of the certification election petition.

On the second issue, the Court held that no certification election should have been ordered. The Secretary of Labor correctly applied Section 3, Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules, which bars a representation question where a bargaining deadlock involving a certified bargaining agent has been submitted to conciliation. The Court found that a bargaining deadlock existed and was being conciliated when the University filed its certification election petition. The Court also noted that the University's filing of the petition on the same day it entered into an agreement with the union was an afterthought.

On the third issue, the Court held that the University was not denied due process. The Secretary of Labor acted within his powers under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code in assuming jurisdiction and consolidating the dispute.

Doctrine

A certification election may not be held where, before the filing of the petition for certification election, a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party has been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or has become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor, exercising extraordinary powers to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute, may consolidate all incidents arising from or necessarily related to that dispute, including a certification election petition and unfair labor practice complaints, and resolve them in a single proceeding. The employer's active role in a certification election ceases once it files the petition, and any uncalled-for concern on its part may give rise to the suspicion that it is batting for a company union.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Secretary of Labor and the Acting Secretary of Labor were affirmed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation bars a certification election. Examiners like to use this case to test the scope of the Secretary of Labor's assumption of jurisdiction and the bar against certification elections under the Implementing Rules.