This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner timely appealed to the DOLE Secretary claiming that: (a) the membership of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC consisted of managerial, confidential, and rank-and-file employees; (b) NUWHRAIN-HHMSC failed to comply with the reportorial requirements; and (c) Med-Arbiter Falconitin simply brushed aside serious questions on the illegitimacy of NUWHRAIN-HHMSC.[15] It contended that a labor union of mixed membership of supervisory and rank-and-file employees had no legal right to petition for the certification election pursuant to the pronouncements in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union[16] (Toyota Motor) and Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.) v. Secretary of Labor and Employment[17](Dunlop Slazenger). | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Since petitioner's members are mixture of rank and file and supervisory employees, petitioner union, at this point [in] time, has not attained the status of a legitimate labor organization. Petitioner should first exclude the supervisory employees from it membership before it can attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. The above judgment is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Toyota Case[10] wherein the High Tribunal ruled:"As respondent union's membership list contains the names of at least twenty seven (27) supervisory employees in Level Five Positions, the union could not prior to purging itself of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election." (Underscoring omitted.) | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| By Decision of February 15, 2000,[15] the Court of Appeals denied THIGCI's Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence, the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the basis of lack of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well as lack of employer-employee relationship following this Court's ruling in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor Union et al[16] and Dunlop Slazenger [Phils.] v. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment et al,[17] petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to support its allegations. | |||||
|
2002-08-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| representation cases, internal union and intra-union disputes. Considering that the case before the Med-Arbiter was a Petition for Certification Election by respondent TMPCEWU, the only task of the Med-Arbiter was to determine the employees' choice of their bargaining representative, and nothing more. Third. The Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motor Corporation Philippines Labor Union and Secretary of Labor,[8] limited the finding of petitioner's lack of personality only to the time when it filed its Petition | |||||