ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NATIONAL CHAPTER), PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, RESPONDENTS.

Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines versus Court of Industrial Relations

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines, National Chapter, against the Court of Industrial Relations and the Associated Labor Union. The petitioner lost a certification election and asked the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling below on how the winner of a representation election is determined. The case matters because it is a question of first impression: when the law says the winning union must receive "the majority of the votes cast," do we count every ballot dropped into the box, including spoiled and challenged ballots, or only the valid votes? The answer decides who becomes the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees.

Procedural History

The Department of Labor conducted a certification election at the Insular Lumber Company, pursuant to an order of the Court of Industrial Relations. After the results were tallied, the petitioner asked the Court of Industrial Relations to declare it the winner, arguing that the challenged votes and the spoiled ballots should be deducted from the total votes cast in computing the majority. The Court of Industrial Relations, in its order of October 1, 1963, denied the motion, holding that the basis for the majority is the total votes cast and not the valid votes alone. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the Court of Industrial Relations in banc denied it in its resolution of January 16, 1964. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in June 1967.

Facts

The election was held on June 28, 1963 to select the bargaining agent of the permanent employees in the Mill and Woods departments of the Insular Lumber Company. Six choices appeared on the ballot, and the votes were distributed as follows: the Associated Labor Union received 347; the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions received 17; the Congress of Independent Organizations received 4; the Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines, National Chapter, received 664; the Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines, Fabrica Chapter, received 163; and 9 votes were cast for no union. There were also 113 challenged votes and 39 spoiled ballots. The total valid votes cast were 1,204, and the total votes cast, including challenged and spoiled ballots, were 1,356.

The petitioner, having received the highest number of votes at 664, asked to be declared the winner. It contended that the challenged votes, cast by security guards and supervisors, should be declared illegal, and that these, together with the spoiled ballots, should be deducted from the total votes cast in determining the majority.

The Court of Industrial Relations refused. It held that the minimum majority necessary to elect a union was 679, because the basis for the majority in this jurisdiction is the total votes cast, not the valid votes alone. Against that ruling the petitioner appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the phrase "the majority of the votes cast" in the certification election provision means a majority of all votes cast, including invalid and spoiled votes, or only a majority of the valid votes cast.
• Whether or not the challenged votes, which were sufficient in number to affect the result of the election, should have been examined as to the grounds of objection, with ineligible votes excluded and eligible votes counted.

Applicable Provisions

Section 12 of the Industrial Peace Act, Republic Act No. 875, provides in its pertinent portion:

Exclusive Collective Bargaining Representative for Labor Organizations. (a) The labor organization designated or selected for the purpose of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.

This subsection speaks of a union designated or selected by the majority of the employees, and it is the language copied from the American statute that guides the Court's reading of the provision.

The same section continues:

(b) Whenever a question arises concerning the representation of employees, the Court may investigate such controversy and certify to the parties in writing the name of the labor organization that has been designated or selected for the appropriate bargaining unit. In any such investigation, the Court shall provide for a speedy and appropriate hearing upon due notice and if there is any reasonable doubt as to whom the employees have chosen as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining, the Court shall order a secret ballot election to be conducted by the Department of Labor, to ascertain who is the freely chosen representative of the employees, under such rules and regulations as the Court may prescribe, at which balloting representatives of the contending parties shall have the right to attend as inspectors. Such balloting shall be known as a certification election and the Court shall not order certification in the same unit more often than once in twelve months. The organization receiving the majority of votes cast in such election shall be bargaining representative of such employees.

This is the provision the case construes: the winning union is the one receiving "the majority of votes cast," and the dispute is over what those words include.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the phrase "the majority of the votes cast" does not authorize the counting of invalid votes. The Court noted that subsection (a) speaks of a union selected by the majority of the employees, while subsection (b) speaks of the union receiving the majority of the votes cast. It traced the local provision to Section 9(a) of the American National Labor Relations Act, which uses the same language as subsection (a), and held that our subsection (a) must carry the same meaning. The American courts had already settled that a majority of the votes cast suffices, even if less than a majority of the entire membership, because those who do not participate are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting. The Court explained that requiring a majority of all eligible voters would let an indifferent minority thwart the purpose of the law, and that absence from the polls may be due less to indifference than to coercion by the employer.

The Court then asked whether, by using different language in subsection (b), Congress intended a different rule. It answered quite the contrary. The phrase "the majority of the votes cast" was inserted to adopt the political principle of majority rule, not to authorize the counting of invalid ballots. The Court held that invalid votes should be excluded and only the number of valid votes cast should be the basis in determining the majority. It warned that a contrary rule would make it easy for a union to challenge voters known to be sympathetic to its rival, knowing that the challenged votes would not be examined even as their number would be counted in determining the majority. As the Court put it, an easier way of frustrating the results of elections could not be imagined.

On the second issue, the Court drew a distinction. Spoiled ballots, meaning those which are defaced, torn or marked, should still be counted in determining the majority, because they are nevertheless votes cast by qualified voters. But the challenged votes, because they were likely to affect the result of the election, should have been examined as to the grounds of objection. Those found to have been cast by ineligible voters, whether supervisory or confidential employees, should have been rejected and excluded from the count, while those found to have been cast by eligible employees should have been opened and counted in favor of the union for which they were cast.

Doctrine

In a certification election, the winning labor organization is the one receiving the majority of the valid votes cast. Invalid votes are excluded from the count, but spoiled ballots, being votes cast by qualified voters, are counted. The majority is not measured against the total number of eligible employees, because those who do not vote are presumed to assent to the will of the majority of those who do. Challenged votes that are sufficient in number to affect the result must be examined on their merits, with ineligible votes excluded and eligible votes counted. These rules flow directly from Section 12 of the Industrial Peace Act, which requires that the organization "receiving the majority of votes cast in such election shall be bargaining representative of such employees."

Disposition

The Court reversed the order of October 1, 1963 and the resolution of January 16, 1964, and remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for determination of the results of the election in accordance with the decision, with no costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the majority in a certification election means the majority of the valid votes cast, with spoiled ballots counted but invalid votes excluded. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a majority of votes cast and a majority of eligible voters, and the treatment of challenged and spoiled ballots.