This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner timely appealed to the DOLE Secretary claiming that: (a) the membership of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC consisted of managerial, confidential, and rank-and-file employees; (b) NUWHRAIN-HHMSC failed to comply with the reportorial requirements; and (c) Med-Arbiter Falconitin simply brushed aside serious questions on the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.[15] It contended that a labor union of mixed membership of supervisory and rank-and-file employees had no legal right to petition for the certification election pursuant to the pronouncements in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union[16] (Toyota Motor) and Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.) v. Secretary of Labor and Employment[17](Dunlop Slazenger). | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Decision of February 15, 2000,[15] the Court of Appeals denied THIGCI's Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well as lack of employer-employee relationship following this Court's ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union et al[16] and Dunlop Slazenger [Phils.] v. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment et al,[17] petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. | |||||