Article 232 of the Philippine Labor Code is applicable in the following situations:
1. Existing Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs): If there is a valid and existing CBA between
an employer and a union, no petition for certification election can be entertained by the Bureau of
Labor Relations or the Department of Labor and Employment. This provision ensures the stability
and continuity of the bargaining relationship between the employer and the union.
2. Petitions for certification election during the term of the CBA: A certification election is a process
wherein workers vote to choose which union will represent them for purposes of collective
bargaining. If a CBA is still in effect, no certification election can be held unless the parties agree
to its conduct or if the CBA is about to expire within 60 days.
3. Other actions that may disturb the CBA: The prohibition on certification election also covers other
actions that may disturb the CBA, such as petitions for cancellation or withdrawal of recognition
of the union, or any other action that may disrupt the collective bargaining relationship between the
parties.
4. Exceptions to the prohibition: The prohibition on certification election is not absolute. Under
Articles 253, 253-A, and 256 of the Labor Code, certification elections may be allowed in certain
circumstances, such as when there is no existing CBA or when the parties fail to agree on the terms
of a CBA.
Here’s a specific legal case where Article 232 of the Philippine Labor Code has been applied as a ruling:
1. San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma (GR No. 122191,
June 18, 1998) - In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on certification election
under Article 232 applies even if the existing CBA has already expired but is still being
implemented by the parties.
Summary of Facts:
San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union ("SMCSEE") was a labor organization
representing the supervisors and exempt employees of San Miguel Corporation ("SMC"). The collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) between SMCSEE and SMC expired on December 31, 1991, but the parties
continued to implement its provisions. On May 7, 1993, SMCSEE filed a petition for certification election
with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), claiming that it had a majority representation among the
supervisors and exempt employees of SMC. SMC opposed the petition on the ground that a CBA was still
in effect, and therefore, no certification election could be held under Article 232 of the Labor Code.
Issue:
Whether the prohibition on certification election under Article 232 applies even if the existing CBA has
already expired but is still being implemented by the parties.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on certification election under Article 232 applies even if the
existing CBA has already expired but is still being implemented by the parties. The Court held that the term
"existing CBA" in Article 232 refers to a CBA that is in force, regardless of whether or not it has already
expired. The Court noted that the CBA between SMCSEE and SMC contained a no-strike, no-lockout
provision, which meant that the parties were bound to comply with its terms and conditions even after its
expiration. The Court held that to allow a certification election during the term of an expired but still
implemented CBA would be a violation of the principle of stability in labor relations. Therefore, the BLR's
dismissal of SMCSEE's petition for certification election was proper.
The Contract-Bar Rule is applicable in the following situations:
1. Valid and registered Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): The Contract-Bar Rule is applicable
when there is a valid and registered CBA between an employer and a union. During the term of the
CBA, no election can be held contesting the majority status of the incumbent union.
2. Inter-union electoral contest: The Contract-Bar Rule bars the holding of an inter-union electoral
contest during the subsistence of a valid and registered CBA. This means that a rival union cannot
challenge the incumbent union's majority status through a certification election.
3. Freedom period: Under Article 256 of the Labor Code, the Contract-Bar Rule is lifted during the
"freedom period," which refers to the last 60 days of the fifth year of a CBA. This is the only time
when an election contesting the majority status of the incumbent union can be held.
4. Objective of the rule: The objective of the Contract-Bar Rule is to minimize union politicking
during the term of the CBA. By prohibiting election contests during this period, the rule aims to
promote stability and continuity in the collective bargaining relationship between the parties.
Here’s a specific legal case where the Contract-Bar Rule has been applied as a ruling:
1. National Federation of Labor v. Laguesma (GR No. 121171, March 14, 1997) - In this case, the
Supreme Court ruled that the Contract-Bar Rule prohibits the holding of a certification election
during the term of a valid and registered CBA, except during the freedom period.
Summary of Facts:
The National Federation of Labor ("NFL") filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of
Labor Relations ("BLR") seeking to represent the rank-and-file employees of Equitable Banking
Corporation ("EBC"). However, EBC opposed the petition, arguing that a valid and registered collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") existed between EBC and its employees' union, and that the Contract-Bar
Rule prohibited the holding of a certification election during the term of a CBA, except during the freedom
period.
Issue:
Whether the Contract-Bar Rule prohibits the holding of a certification election during the term of a valid
and registered CBA, except during the freedom period.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Contract-Bar Rule prohibits the holding of a certification election during
the term of a valid and registered CBA, except during the freedom period. The Court held that the ContractBar Rule is designed to promote industrial peace and stability in labor-management relations by
encouraging the parties to enter into collective bargaining and honor their agreements. The Court noted that
the CBA between EBC and its employees' union was valid and registered, and therefore, the BLR could
not entertain NFL's petition for certification election during the term of the CBA. The Court held that the
freedom period, which refers to the last 60 days of the fifth year of a CBA, is the only time when a
certification election may be held. Therefore, the BLR's dismissal of NFL's petition for certification election
was proper.
Art. 233. Privileged communication. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall
be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators
and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation
proceedings conducted by them.
Art. 233 of the Labor Code of the Philippines applies to conciliation proceedings between employers and
employees or their representatives, as facilitated by conciliators and similar officials. The provision
establishes that information and statements made during these proceedings are considered privileged
communication and cannot be used as evidence in the Commission (referring to the National Labor
Relations Commission). Additionally, the conciliators and similar officials who preside over these
proceedings are prohibited from testifying in any court or body about any matters taken up during the
conciliation process.
Situations or instances where this provision may apply include:
1. Conciliation proceedings initiated by an employer or employees to settle disputes related to
employment or labor relations, such as grievances, unfair labor practices, or collective bargaining
negotiations.
2. Mediation or arbitration proceedings facilitated by conciliators or similar officials to resolve
disputes between employers and employees, such as wage or benefits disputes.
3. Conciliation conferences held by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to facilitate
resolution of labor disputes, such as those related to dismissal, retrenchment, or redundancy.
4. Negotiations between parties in a labor dispute, whether initiated voluntarily or through a legal
requirement such as mandatory arbitration.
In these situations, parties can expect that information and statements made during conciliation proceedings
will be kept confidential and cannot be used as evidence in any court or body, ensuring that parties can
negotiate and explore potential resolutions to the dispute in a frank and open manner. The prohibition on
conciliators and similar officials from testifying in any court or body also promotes the impartiality and
independence of the conciliation process.
Here’s a specific legal case where Art. 233 of the Labor Code of the Philippines has been applied as
a ruling:
In Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco Workers Union-PTGWO, the Philtranco Workers
Union-PTGWO filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. (PSEI).
The parties subsequently attended a conciliation meeting before a labor arbiter to settle the dispute. During
the conciliation meeting, the parties made several statements and admissions, which were recorded in the
minutes of the meeting. Later, the Union filed a motion to have the minutes of the meeting admitted as
evidence in court.
The issue in this case was whether or not the statements made during the conciliation meeting were
admissible as evidence in court.
The Supreme Court held that the statements made during the conciliation meeting were privileged
communication and therefore cannot be used as evidence in court. The Court explained that the parties to
the conciliation meeting had a reasonable expectation that their statements would be confidential and not
used as evidence against them. The Court also noted that the Labor Code provides that information and
statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication.
The Court further clarified that the prohibition against the use of privileged communication applies not only
to the labor arbiter or conciliator but also to any court or body. Thus, the Court denied the Union's motion
to admit the minutes of the conciliation meeting as evidence in court.
Article 234 of the Philippine Labor Code provides the requirements for a labor organization to
acquire legal personality and the rights and privileges granted to legitimate labor organizations. The
requirements are as follows:
1. The name of the organization;
2. The names of its officers and their addresses;
3. The organization's constitution and by-laws, which must include provisions for the union's
democratic governance and for the protection of the rights of its members;
4. The registration statement of the organization, which must include the following information:
a.
The
organization's
history,
its
objectives,
and
its
affiliations;
b.
The
industries
or
occupations
of
its
members;
c. The names and addresses of the companies where its members are employed;
d.
The
dues
and
other
fees
charged
to
its
members;
and
e. The organization's financial statements.
Once a labor organization has complied with these requirements, it may file its application for registration
with the Bureau of Labor Relations, which will then issue a certificate of registration to the organization.
Failure to comply with any of these requirements may result in the denial of the labor organization's
application for registration, which means it will not be granted legal personality and will not be entitled to
the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations. Additionally, non-compliance
may also result in the cancellation of the union's existing certificate of registration, which would cause the
union to lose its legal personality and the rights and privileges it previously enjoyed. If any of the
requirements under Art. 234 is absent, the labor organization may not acquire legal personality and will not
be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations. This means that the
organization will not be recognized as a legitimate representative of the employees in collective bargaining
and other labor relations matters. In order to acquire legal personality, the labor organization must comply
with all the requirements listed in Art. 234.
Article 234-A outlines the requirements and process for the chartering and creation of a local chapter
by a registered federation or national union.
Firstly, the federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing a charter certificate
that indicates the establishment of the local chapter. However, the local chapter will only acquire legal
personality for the purpose of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a charter
certificate.
To fully acquire legal personality and be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor
organization, the local chapter must submit additional documents to the Bureau of Labor Relations. These
documents include the names and addresses of the chapter's officers, the principal office of the chapter, and
the chapter's constitution and by-laws. If the chapter's constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the
federation or national union, this should be indicated accordingly.
The additional supporting requirements should be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the
chapter and attested by its president. Once the Bureau of Labor Relations has received and approved these
documents, the local chapter will be granted legal personality and entitled to all the rights and privileges of
a legitimate labor organization.