This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Based on the established facts, we find that the CA grossly misread the NLRC ruling and missed the implications of the respondents' regularization. To reiterate, the respondents are regular seasonal employees, as the CA itself opined when it declared that "private respondents who are regular workers with respect to their seasonal tasks or activities and while such activities exist, cannot automatically be governed by the CBA between petitioner URSUMCO and the authorized bargaining representative of the regular and permanent employees."[44] Citing jurisprudential standards,[45] it then proceeded to explain that the respondents cannot be lumped with the regular employees due to the differences in the nature of their duties and the duration of their work vis-a-vis the operations of the company. | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Private respondent, however, countered that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that some of the employees included in the petition for certification election holds managerial and supervisory positions.[14] Assuming it to be true, it argued that Section 11 (II),[15] Rule XI of DOLE Department Order (D.O.) No. 9, Series of 1997, provided for specific instances in which a petition filed by a legitimate organization shall be dismissed by the Med-Arbiter and that "mixture of employees" is not one of those enumerated. Private respondent pointed out that questions pertaining to qualifications of employees may be threshed out in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings prior to the conduct of the certification election, pursuant to Section 2,[16] Rule XII of D.O. No. 9. Lastly, similar to the ruling in In Re: Globe Machine and Stamping Company,[17] it contended that the will of petitioner's employees should be respected as they had manifested their desire to be represented by only one bargaining unit. To back up the formation of a single employer unit, private respondent asserted that even if the teachers may receive additional pay for an advisory class and for holding additional loads, petitioner's academic and non-academic personnel have similar working conditions. It cited Laguna College v. Court of Industrial Relations,[18] as well as the case of a union in West Negros College in Bacolod City, which allegedly represented both academic and non-academic employees. | |||||