This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Basic in the realm of labor union rights is that the certification election is the sole concern of the workers,[29] and the employer is deemed an intruder as far as the certification election is concerned.[30] Thus, the petitioner lacked the legal personality to assail the proceedings for the certification election,[31] and should stand aside as a mere bystander who could not oppose the petition, or even appeal the Med-Arbiter's orders relative to the conduct of the certification election.[32] As the Court has explained in Republic v. Kawashima Textile Mfg., Philippines, Inc.[33](Kawashima): Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. The choice of their representative is the exclusive concern of the employees; the employer cannot have any partisan interest therein; it cannot interfere with, much less oppose, the process by filing a motion to dismiss or an appeal from it; not even a mere allegation that some employees participating in a petition for certification election are actually managerial employees will lend an employer legal personality to block the certification election. The employer's only right in the proceeding is to be notified or informed thereof. | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, note must be taken that even without the express provision of Section 12 of RA No. 9481, the "Bystander Rule" is already well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It has been consistently held in a number of cases that a certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander.[41] The employer clearly lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere at all therein.[42] This is so since any uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may give rise to the suspicion that it is batting for a company union.[43] Indeed, the demand of the law and policy for an employer to take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections is based on the rationale that the employees' bargaining representative should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of the management; that, to be effective, the bargaining representative must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other.[44] | |||||