Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard Members of SAMAHAN registered as a worker’s The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from
v. Bureau of Labor Relations, association. HANJIN asked cancellation of exercising the said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right
registration on the ground that members of granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. 53 Also
SAMAHAN are employees, and not eligible to inherent in the right to self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes
form a worker’s association. SC held that it is up to of collective bargaining or a workers' association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.
workers to choose whether to form a union or an There is no provision in the Labor Code that states that employees with definite employers may form,
association, so SAMAHAN can form an assoc. join or assist unions only.
A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective bargaining and
for other legitimate purpose,46 while a workers' association is an organization of workers formed for
the mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining.47
Any labor organization which may or may not be a union may deal with the employer. This explains
why a workers' association or organization does not always have to be a labor union and why
employer-employee collective interactions are not always collective bargaining
2 KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC., petitioner, vs. KNITJOY had a negotiation for a CBA with CFW, a The right to form a union or association or to self-organization comprehends two (2) broad notions, to
PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, Director of Bureau of union of rank and file EEs paid on a daily basis or wit: (a) the liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may
Labor Relations, and KNITJOY MONTHLY piece rate basis. During the pendency of these act for himself without being prevented by law, and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee
EMPLOYEES UNION negotiations, KMEU filed a petition for may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association It is, therefore, the employee who
certification election, CFW, KMEA-CCLU and should decide for himself whether he should join or not an association; and should he choose to join,
another union intervened. The petition was he himself makes up his mind as to which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he
dismissed and was ordered to form a single union still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at
for the company. Upon appeal with BLR, KNITJOY any time. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act have recognized, and
argued that the EEs of the monthly paid and daily guaranteed to the employee, is the ‘right’ to join associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say
paid EEs have the same working incentives and that the law also imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee the duty to join associations. The
that CFW is willing to include the monthly paid law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any association..
EEs. BLR Director granted the execution of the
certification election. Issue arose as to whether
KMEU can be an appropriate bargaining unit
separate and distinct from the existing unit
composed of daily paid EEs. SC held that they can
do so. The LC is in favor of a one union one
company policy but it has exceptions. Article 245
of the LC expressly allows supervisory employees
who are not performing managerial functions to
join, assist or form their separate union but bars
them from membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees. This allows more
than one union in a company. Also, it is allowed if
to give way to other units. Here, it was shown that
KMEU was expressly excluded in the negotiation
between KNITJOY and daily rate EEs. Insofar as
monthly paid EEs are concerned, KNITJOY and
CFW cannot prevent or infringe the right of these
monthly paid EEs to form a union and enter into
collective bargaining negotiations. KMEU had the
unquestioned and undisputed right to seek
certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the monthly paid rank-and-file
employees; both KNITJOY and CFW cannot block
the same.
3. DBP v COA
The Union of supervisory employees, representing Route managers are managerial employees who are ineligible to join, form or assist a union under the
4 United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. the route managers at the company, is challenging Labor Code. Unlike managers, supervisors can unionize.
Laguesma the constitutionality of Art. 245 of the Labor Code,
which states that managerial employees to be
ineligible to form, assist or join unions. It is
alleging that the provision runs contrary to Art. III,
sec. 8 of the Constitution, which provides that the
right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. The
Supreme Court first determined who are
managerial employees and ruled that the route
managers, by virtue of the nature of their job, are
managerial employees and therefore, ineligible to
organize. The Supreme Court then looked into the
evolution of the right of the supervisors to
organize, wherein under the present rule: the
ineligibility of managerial employees to unionize is
retained but the right of supervisory employees to
unionize is revived. Lastly, the Supreme Court
ruled that Art. 245 is constitutional. It reasoned
that if these managerial employees would belong
to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might
not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in
view of evident conflict of interests. The Union
can also become company- dominated with the
presence of managerial employees in Union
membership.
33.
34.
35.