Q: What are the factors considered in determining the appropriateness of a bargaining unit?
A:
1. Will of the Ees (Globe Doctrine)
2. Affinity and unity of the Ees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions (Substantial Mutual Interest Doctrine / Community of Interest Rule) 3. Prior CB history (CB History Doctrine)
4. Similarity of employment status (Employment Status Doctrine)
Q: What is the Globe Doctrine?
A: In defining the appropriate bargaining unit, the determining factor is the desire of the workers themselves.
Q: What is the Substantial Mutual Interest Doctrine? A: The Ees sought to be represented by the CB agent must have substantial mutual interest in terms of employment and working condition as evinced by the type of work they perform [San Miguel Corp.
Employees Union-PTGWO v. Confesor, 262 SCRA 81, (1996)].
Q: What is the Collective Bargaining History Doctrine?
A: In determining the appropriate bargaining unit, prior CB history and affinity of the Ees may be resorted to.
Q: What is the Employment Status Doctrine? A: The determination of the appropriate bargaining unit is based on the employment status of the Ees. Q: What are the factors considered in determining the Substantial Mutual Interest Doctrine?
A:
1. Similarity in the scale and manner of determining earnings
2. Similarity in employment benefits, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment 3. Similarity in the kinds of work performed
4. Similarity in the qualifications, skills and training of Ees
5. Frequency of contract or interchange among the Ees
6. Geographical proximity
7. Continuity and integration of production processes
8. Common supervision and determination of labor- relations policy
9. History of CB
10. Desires of the affected Ees or 11. Extent of union organization
Q: A registered labor union in UP, ONAPUP, filed a petition for certification election among the non- academic employees. The university did not oppose, however, another labor union, the All UP Workers Union assents that it represents both academic and non-academic personnel and seeks to unite all workers in one union. Do employees performing academic functions need to comprise a bargaining unit distinct from that of the non-academic employees?
A: Yes. The mutuality of interest test should be taken into consideration. There are two classes of rank and file Ees in the university, those who perform academic functions such as the professors and instructors, and those whose function are non- academic who are the janitors, messengers, clerks etc. Thus, not much reflection is needed to perceive that the mutuality of interest which justifies the formation of a single bargaining unit is lacking between the two classes of Ees [U.P. v. Ferrer-Calleja,
G.R. No.96189, (1992)].
Q: Is the bargaining history a decisive factor in the determination of appropriateness of bargaining unit?
A: No. While the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is community or mutuality of interests. This is so because the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all Ees the exercise of their CB rights
[Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-10321, (1958)].
Q: What is “one-union, one-company” policy? A: GR: All the rank-and-file Ees with substantially the same interests and who invoke the right to self- organization are part of a single unit so that they can deal with their Er with just one and potent voice. The Ees’ bargaining power is strengthened thereby [General Rubber and Footwear Corporation v. Bureau
of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. L-74262, (1987)].
XPNs:
1. Supervisory Ees who are allowed to form their own unions apart from the rank-and- file Ees and
2. Craft Unit 3. Plant Unit
Note: The policy should yield to the right of Ees to
form union for purposes not contrary to law, self- organization and to enter into CB negotiations.
Note: Two companies cannot be treated into a single
bargaining unit even if their businesses are related. Subsidiaries or corporations formed out of former divisions of a mother company following a re-organization may constitute a separate bargaining unit.
Q: Union filed a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of three security agencies including the Veterans Security. The latter opposed alleging that the three security agencies have separate and distinct corporate personalities. May a single petition for certification election be filed by a labor union in the three corporations instead of filing three separate petitions?
A: Yes. The following are indications that the three agencies do not exist and operate separately and distinctly from each other with different corporate direction and goals: 1) Veterans Security failed to rebut the fact that they are managed through the Utilities Management Corporation with all their employees drawing their salaries and wages from the said entity; 2) that the agencies have common and interlocking incorporators and officers; 3) that they have a single mutual benefit system and followed a single system of compulsory retirement. 4) they could easily transfer security guards of one agency to another and back again by simply filling-up a common pro-forma slip; 5) they always hold joint yearly ceremonies such as the PGA Annual Awards Ceremony; and 6) they continue to be represented by one counsel.
Hence, the veil of corporate fiction of the three agencies should be lifted for the purpose of allowing the Ees of the three agencies to form single union. As a single bargaining unit, the Ees need not file three separate PCE [Philippine Scout Veterans Security and
Investigation Agency v. SLE, G.R. No. 92357, (1993)].
Q: Company XYZ has two recognized labor unions, one for its rank-and-file employees and the other for its supervisory employees. Of late, the company instituted a restructuring program by virtue of which A, a rank-and-file employee and officer of rank-and- file employees’ labor union, was promoted to a supervisory position along with four other colleagues, also active union members and/or officers. Labor Union KMJ, a rival labor union seeking recognition as the rank-and-file bargaining agent, filed a petition for the cancellation of the registration of rank-and-file employees labor union
U S T