HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAQUESMA, MED-ARBITER MELCHOR S. LIM AND THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, RESPOND…

Hercules Industries versus the Secretary of Labor

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Hercules Industries, Incorporated, an employer, against the Secretary of Labor, the Undersecretary of Labor, the Med-Arbiter, and the National Federation of Labor. The employer asks the Supreme Court to set aside the resolution of the Undersecretary of Labor that affirmed the Med-Arbiter's order declaring the National Federation of Labor as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the company's rank and file workers. The case matters because it draws a bright line on standing: it tells us who may question a certification election, and it tells us that the employer is not that party.

Procedural History

The National Federation of Labor filed a petition for certification election before the Med-Arbiter. The Med-Arbiter issued an order setting the election and fixing the list of eligible voters. The federation appealed that order to the Bureau of Labor Relations, and the Director of the Bureau granted the appeal, annulled the election that had been held, and directed a new certification election using the July 1987 payroll, excluding the replacement workers, as the basis of the voters' list.

A new certification election was held in May 1990, and the Med-Arbiter thereafter issued a resolution certifying the National Federation of Labor as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal with the Department of Labor and Employment, which the Undersecretary of Labor denied. A second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The employer then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. A rival union later filed a motion for intervention, which the Court merely noted without action.

Facts

Hercules Industries, Incorporated is a corporation employing more or less one hundred eighty workers. In July 1987, the National Federation of Labor, a legitimate labor federation, filed a petition for certification election, alleging that the existing collective bargaining agreement would expire in August 1987 and that it enjoyed the support of more than twenty per cent of the rank and file employees in the bargaining unit.

By agreement of the parties, the Med-Arbiter ordered a certification election with three choices: the National Federation of Labor, the Hercules Employees Labor Union, and No Union. At the pre-election conference, the parties could not agree on the list of qualified voters. The company charged that the list included ninety eight scabs, sixteen capatazes, eight security guards, and nine managerial employees. The Med-Arbiter then issued an order allowing the regular rank and file workers in the July 1987 payroll, and the strikers who had not executed a quitclaim and accepted separation pay, to vote, while expressly excluding managerial employees, the security force, and strikers who had executed a deed of quitclaim and accepted separation pay.

The federation appealed that order, but a certification election was nonetheless conducted in November 1987. The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations granted the appeal, declared that election null and void, and directed a new election using the July 1987 payroll, excluding the ninety eight replacement workers, as the basis of the voters' list. A new certification election was held in May 1990, in which the National Federation of Labor received eighty nine votes, with two spoiled or invalid votes, out of ninety one votes cast. The Med-Arbiter certified the federation as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, and the Undersecretary of Labor denied the employer's appeal on the ground that no protest had been made before the election nor formalized within five days after it.

Issues

• Whether or not the employer, Hercules Industries, Incorporated, may question the validity of the certification election among its rank and file employees.
• Whether or not the certification election of May 1990 was valid, given the employer's claims of lack of notice, non-use of the July 1987 payroll, and failure of voters to sign the master list.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule VI on Elections of Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

Section 3. Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot questions. The Representation officer may rule on any on-the-spot question arising from the conduct of the election. The interested party may however, file a protest with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Such protests shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings.

This provision bears on the case because the employer never raised any protest before the close of the election proceedings, so any objection is deemed waived.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered no. In a long line of decisions, it has ruled that the employer is not a party to a certification election, which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. In the choice of their collective bargaining representative, the employer is definitely an intruder, and its participation deserves no encouragement. The only instance when the employer may be involved is when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election on its workers' request to bargain collectively under Article 258 of the Labor Code. After the order for a certification election issues, the employer's involvement ceases, and it becomes a neutral bystander. Here, the employees never requested the company to bargain collectively, and they did not object to the results of the election. The employer's appeal and its petition for certiorari must therefore be rejected.

On the second issue, the Court held that the challenge was devoid of merit. The employer's allegations were belied by the minutes of the pre-election conference, which showed that the company was duly notified and attended, and that the election was set for May 1990. The minutes of the election showed that the list of voters was copied from the 1987 payroll per order of the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, and certified that the election was conducted in a just, honest, and free manner without untoward incident. Neither the records nor the minutes showed that the employer protested the conduct of the election as required by the rule, and protests not so raised are deemed waived. The Med-Arbiter's finding, supported by substantial evidence, deserves not only respect but also finality.

Doctrine

The employer is not a party to a certification election, which is the sole or exclusive concern of the workers. The employer may be involved only when it is obliged to file a petition for certification election upon its workers' request to bargain collectively; once the order for certification election issues, the employer becomes a neutral bystander. Any protest against the conduct of the election must be raised with the representation officer before the close of the proceedings, and protests not so raised are deemed waived under Section 3 of Rule VI. The Med-Arbiter's findings on the conduct of the election, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner, and the National Federation of Labor remained the certified sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the employer is a neutral bystander after the order for certification election issues, and that it is an intruder in the choice of the workers' bargaining representative. Examiners use this case on the standing of an employer to question a certification election, and on the waiver of protests not raised before the close of the election proceedings.