The Supreme Court ruled that probationary employees have the right to vote in certification elections, safeguarding their right to representation. This decision emphasizes that all rank-and-file employees, regardless of employment status, are entitled to participate in selecting their bargaining representatives, upholding the constitutional right to self-organization and ensuring fair representation in collective bargaining.

Whose Voice Matters? Resolving Employee Eligibility in Labor Union Certification

In the complex world of labor relations, a critical question arises: who gets to decide which union represents the workers? This issue came to the forefront in a dispute at Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel, where two unions, the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) and the Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU), were vying for certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for the hotel’s rank-and-file employees. A certification election was held, but the results were contested due to the segregation of several votes cast by probationary, dismissed, and allegedly supervisory employees. This prompted a legal battle over the eligibility of these employees to participate in the election process.

The pivotal issue revolved around the probationary employees and whether their votes should be counted, especially since one probationary employee’s vote was already tallied. NUWHRAIN-MPHC argued that excluding the other probationary employees violated the principle of equal protection. They also contended that the date for determining eligibility should be when the Department of Labor and Employment (SOLE) affirmed the order for the election, not the initial Med-Arbiter’s order. The union further asserted that including these votes would change the outcome, potentially necessitating a run-off election since HIMPHLU wouldn’t have achieved a majority.

The Supreme Court addressed whether probationary employees should be allowed to vote and if HIMPHLU obtained the required majority. The Court affirmatively stated that probationary employees have the right to vote in a certification election. Drawing from Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, the Court reiterated that all rank-and-file employees, whether probationary or permanent, are entitled to vote. This position aligns with Article 255 of the Labor Code, which mandates that the chosen labor organization represents all employees in the bargaining unit, reinforcing the notion that all rank-and-file employees have a substantial interest in selecting their bargaining representative.

Department Order No. 40-03, Rule II, Sec. 2 emphasizes this point further:

“For purposes of this section, any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall beginning on the first day of his/her service, be eligible for membership in any labor organization.”

Consequently, any provision in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that disqualifies probationary employees from voting would contravene the constitutionally protected right of workers to self-organization, alongside the Labor Code provisions on certification elections.

Furthermore, Rule XI, Sec. 5 of D.O. 40-03 cannot be read in isolation; it must harmonize with other provisions. The Court elucidated that when a timely appeal is filed against a Med-Arbiter’s Order, the eligibility for voting is determined when the Order from the Secretary of Labor and Employment becomes final and executory. This interpretation ensures that employees hired during the appeal process are not disenfranchised, safeguarding their right to join a labor organization from their first day of employment. To exclude these employees would undermine the remedy of appealing to the SOLE.

However, the Court clarified that while probationary employees’ votes should be included, the votes of the six supervisory employees must be excluded because they were no longer part of the rank and file at the time of the election due to their promotions. Consequently, to have a valid certification election based on the “double majority rule,” a majority of the bargaining unit must have voted, and the winning union must have garnered a majority of the valid votes cast. Given these considerations, the Court ultimately determined that HIMPHLU did not obtain the required majority, necessitating a run-off election between HIMPHLU and NUWHRAIN-MPHC.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether probationary employees should be allowed to vote in a certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent. The Court clarified their right to participate in such elections.
Why were some votes segregated during the election?	Votes were segregated because they were cast by employees with disputed status, including probationary employees, employees who had been dismissed, and those allegedly in supervisory positions.
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding probationary employees’ right to vote?	The Supreme Court ruled that all rank-and-file employees, including those on probationary status, are entitled to vote in certification elections, reinforcing their right to representation.
How did the court interpret Department Order No. 40-03?	The court interpreted that when an appeal is filed, the eligibility to vote is determined when the SOLE order becomes final and executory. This prevents the disenfranchisement of employees hired during the appeal process.
What is the “double majority rule” in certification elections?	The “double majority rule” requires that a majority of the bargaining unit must have voted, and the winning union must have garnered a majority of the valid votes cast to win the certification election.
Why was a run-off election ordered in this case?	A run-off election was ordered because HIMPHLU did not obtain the required majority of valid votes cast after the inclusion of the probationary employees’ votes and the exclusion of the supervisory employees’ votes.
What impact does this decision have on labor unions and employees?	This decision clarifies the rights of probationary employees, ensuring their participation in selecting their bargaining representatives and strengthening the democratic process within labor organizations.
Can provisions in a CBA override employees’ right to vote?	No, provisions in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that disqualify probationary employees from voting are invalid as they contravene the constitutionally protected right of workers to self-organization.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of safeguarding employees’ rights to self-organization and representation in the workplace. By affirming the right of probationary employees to participate in certification elections, the Supreme Court ensures that all voices within the bargaining unit are heard and considered. This decision strengthens the foundation of fair and democratic labor relations in the Philippines.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009