Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

26 Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Labor Union vs. Young 2. Bulacan II Electric Cooperative Inc.

lacan II Electric Cooperative Inc. (BECO II) filed its answer contending that
No. L-62386. November 9, 1988. petition does not comply with the 30% jurisdictional requirement considering
that it has a total of 143 EEs, 24 of whom are members of the cooperative, 28
Doctrine: An employee of a cooperative who is also a member and co-owner are managerial employees, 3 are confidential employees, 23 are contractual
thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining. employees and 28 are casual employees, thereby leaving only 37 employees
Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are entitled to exercise belonging to the rank and file; and that to grant the petition would be violative
the rights of all workers to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of of Article 244 (now Article 243) of the Labor Code and Section 35 of PD 269.
collective bargaining. Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it 3. FFW alleges that it has it has complied substantially with the 30% jurisdictional
mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order the holding of a requirement with the 73 signatures it submitted and that there is nothing in
certification election in order to determine the exclusive bargaining agent of the the law that prohibits or restricts cooperative members from joining labor
employees. organizations.
4. BECO II contended that it is not among those covered by Article 244 of the
Facts: This case involves 3 separate petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Labor Code, as amended by BP 70, as it is not a commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise and neither is it a religious, charitable, medical or
G.R. No. 62386 educational institution; that since electric cooperatives are subject to the
1. On June 1,1981, the Batangas-I Electric Cooperative Union (UNION) filed with supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration pursuant
the Regional Office No. IV-A, Ministry of Labor and Employment (now DOLE), to PD 269, as amended by PD 1645, BECO II in effect is a government
at San Pablo City, a petition for certification election. institution; and that there is no representation issue as there is no other labor
2. The UNION alleged that it is a legitimate labor organization; that the Batangas- organization involved except the FFW.
I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BATELEC) has more or less 150 employees; that the 5. Med-Arbiter: allowed certification election.
UNION desires to represent the regular rank and file employees of BATELEC for 6. BECO II filed the instant petition contending that the public respondents acted
purposes of collective bargaining; that there is no other union existing in with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that under Article 244 (now Article 243)
BATELEC except the UNION; that there is no certified collective bargaining of the Labor Code, members and part owners of electric cooperatives are
agreement in the said cooperative; and that there has been no certification eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of collective
election conducted in BATELEC during the last twelve (12) months preceding bargaining.
the filing of the petition.
3. Med Arbiter: allowed the certification election. BATELEC filed MR reasoning G.R. No. 74560
that there was a legal impediment to the holding of a certification election 1. On October 1, 1985, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) ALECO I Chapter
considering that the formation of a union in a cooperative is illegal and invalid, filed a petition for certification election, alleging, inter alia, that it is a legitimate
the officers and members of the union being the owners thereof. labor organization; that the Albay Electric Cooperative I (ALECO I) is an electric
4. Bureau of Labor: granted the appeal, revoked the Med Arbiter’s order. Held cooperative servicing electricity in the Province of Albay; that ALECO I has 160
that Section 35 of PD 269 shows that employees of an electric cooperative who employees, more or less, majority of whom are FFW members; that there is no
are also members of the cooperative have no right to form or join a labor other union existing nor a collective bargaining agreement existing in the
organization for purposes of collective bargaining. cooperative; that no certification election has been held for the past twelve
5. Union filed this petition, contending that the Director of the Bureau of Labor (12) months prior to the filing of the petition.
committed GADALEJ in concluding and finding that employees of an electric 2. The next month, FFW submitted 63 signatures in support of the petition for
cooperative who are at the same time members of the cooperative are not certification election. On the same date, counsel for ALECO I employees for a
allowed to form or join a labor union in the electric cooperative for purposes "NO-UNION STAND" intervened and submitted a copy of the ALECO I 1985
of collective bargaining. budget showing that the said cooperative has a total of 141 rank and file
employees.
G.R. No. 70880 3. FFW: contends that ALECO I is covered by the LC; that it has a right to organize
1. Federation of Free Workers filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment and be represented by a union; that there is no legal impediment to the holding
in Pampanga a petition for certification election.
of a certification election considering that 63 employees supported the d. Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement makes it
petition. mandatory on the part of the Bureau of Labor Relations to order
4. ALECO I: sought dismissal of the petition; alleges that FFW failed to comply the holding of a certification election in order to determine the
with the 30% requirement considering that 112 rank and file employees have exclusive bargaining agent of the employees.
manifested in a "declaration" they that do not desire to be represented by any 3. In the third case: disallowed holding of certification election.
union. a. It is clear from the records in this case that the petitioner ALECO
5. Intervenor, ALECO I EEs for a no-union stand: sought dismissal of the petition, I has 141 rank and file employees. Hence, there are 90 rank and
alleging that the 30% written consent requirement has not been complied file employees, nonmembers of the cooperative, who may
with. It alleged that of the 63 signatories to the petition, 51 are not qualified to validly form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
join the union as they are members-consumers of the ALECO I and are collective bargaining.
considered joint owners of the cooperative pursuant to PD 269, and Art. II Sec. b. However, 51 fo them are members of the cooperative. Thus only
I of the revised bylaws of ALECO I. 12 rank and file EEs were qualified to form, join or assist labor
6. MedArbiter: allowed certification election. On appeal, Director of Bureau of organizations. What is required under the 30% jurisdictional
Labor Relations ruled that there was a "clear proof of compliance with the 30% requirement is 27.
subscription requirement, coupled with the finding that the subscribers to the
petition who are members/owners of the respondent cooperative can validly Ratio:
be eligible for union membership." 1. Eligibility to form, join or assist labor organizations for purposes of
collective bargaining is governed by Article 243 (formerly Article 244) of
Issue: Whether or not employees of electric cooperatives are qualified to form or the Labor Code.
join labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining. 2. In Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja,
Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, et al, it was held that an employee of
Held: a cooperative who is a member and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the
1. In the first case: upheld resolution revoking the certification election. right to collective bargaining.
a. Minus the rank and file employees, who were also members of a. A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an
BATELEC, there was still a sufficient number to constitute 30% of ordinary business concern being run either by persons,
the bargaining unit as a jurisdictional requirement. partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are
b. However, such members are also members-consumers of the the ones who run and operate the business while the others are
cooperative, as admitted by the Union. As such, EEs belonging to its employees.
the Union are not qualified to form a labor organization and b. An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member
bargain collectively. and co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective
2. In the second case: upheld order of medarbiter allowing certification bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or
election. his co-owners.
a. There was no clear evidence was adduced by petitioner to prove c. However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees
that 28 of its employees are managerial employees. who are not members or co-owners thereof, certainly such
b. Even if the 24 cooperative members, assuming, in gratia employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to
argumenti, that all of them supported the petition, are to be organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and others as are
deducted from the said 73 employees, there still remain forty- enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.
nine (49), a sufficient compliance with the 30% jurisdictional
requirement provided in the old Article 258 of the Labor Code,
the law then prevailing.
c. Employees of a cooperative who are not members thereof are
entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to form, join or assist
labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.