This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner's meddling in the conduct of the certification election among its employees unduly gave rise to the suspicion that it intended to establish a company union.[34] For that reason, the challenges it posed against the certification election proceedings were rightly denied. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. As aptly noted by both the BLR and CA, these mostly undated written statements submitted by Ventures on March 20, 2001, or seven months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration, partake of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union's filing of a petition for certification election on March 21, 2000. We have in precedent cases[18] said that the employees' withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Now then, if a withdrawal from union membership done after a petition for certification election has been filed does not vitiate such petition, is it not but logical to assume that such withdrawal cannot work to nullify the registration of the union? Upon this light, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that the BLR did not abuse its discretion nor gravely err when it concluded that the affidavits of retraction of the 82 members had no evidentiary weight. | |||||