This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Anent the alleged mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel, the CA agreed with petitioner that the nature of the former's work does not coincide with that of the latter. Nevertheless, it ruled that the SOLE did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for certification election, since it directed the conduct of two separate certification elections based on Our ruling in University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja.[34] | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the employees of [petitioner], may, as already suggested, quite easily be categorized into (2) general classes[:] one, the teaching staff; and two, the non-teaching-staff. Not much reflection is needed to perceive that the community or mutuality of interest is wanting between the teaching and the non-teaching staff. It would seem obvious that the teaching staff would find very little in common with the non-teaching staff as regards responsibilities and function, working conditions, compensation rates, social life and interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, etc. These are plain and patent realities which cannot be ignored. These dictate the separation of these two categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. (University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451)[19] | |||||
|
2008-03-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hence, to be entitled to the benefits under the CBA, the employees must be members of the bargaining unit, but not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent. A "bargaining unit" has been defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.[33] At this point, the allegation of petitioner PAL that the non-regular employees do not belong to the collective bargaining unit and are thus not covered by the CBA is unjustified and unsubstantiated. It is apparent to us that petitioner PAL excludes certain employees from the benefits of the CBA only because they have not yet achieved regular status by the cut-off date, 30 April 1988. There is no showing that the non-regular status of the concerned employees by said cut-off date sufficiently distinguishes their interests from those of the regular employees so as to exclude them from the collective bargaining unit and the benefits of the CBA. | |||||