Golden Farms Inc. Vs Secretary of Labor

F) Test to determine bargaining unit

Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor

G. R. No. 102130. July 26, 1994
Facts:

Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the production and

marketing of bananas for export. On February 27, 1992, private respondent
Progressive Federation of Labor (PFL) filed a petition before the Med-Arbiter praying
for the holding of a certification election among the monthly paid office and technical
rank-and-file employees of petitioner Golden Farms.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition on three (3) grounds. First, respondent PFL
failed to show that it was organized as a chapter within petitioner’s establishment.
Second, there was already an existing collective bargaining agreement between the
rank-and-file employees represented by the National Federation of Labor (NFL) and
petitioner. And third, the employees represented by PFL had allegedly been
disqualified by this Court from bargaining with management in Golden Farms, Inc. vs.
Honorable Director Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 78755, July 19, 1989.
Respondent PFL opposed petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. It countered that the

monthly paid office and technical employees should be allowed to form a separate
bargaining unit because they were expressly excluded from coverage in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner and NFL. It also
contended that the case invoked by petitioner was inapplicable to the present case.
In its reply, petitioner argued that the monthly paid office and technical employees
should have joined the existing collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
employees if they are not managerial employees.
The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered that a certification election be
conducted.
Issue: whether or not petitioner’s monthly paid rank-and-file employees can

constitute a bargaining unit separate from the existing bargaining unit of its daily paid
rank-and-file employees.
Held: YES.
Ruling:
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, indicate to be
the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. The
community or mutuality of interest is therefore the essential criterion in the grouping.
“And this is so because ‘the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is
whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.’
In the case at bench, the evidence established that the monthly paid rank-and-file
employees of petitioner primarily perform administrative or clerical work. In
contradistinction, the peti-tioner’s daily paid rank-and-file employees mainly work in
the cultivation of bananas in the fields. It is crystal clear the monthly paid rank-and-
file
employees of petitioner have very little in common with its daily paid rank-and-file
employees in terms of duties and obligations, working conditions, salary rates, and
skills. To be sure, the said monthly paid rank-and-file employees have even been
excluded from the bargaining unit of the daily paid rank-and-file employees. This
dissimilarity of interests warrants the formation of a separate and distinct bargaining
unit for the monthly paid rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. To rule otherwise
would deny this distinct class of employees the right to self organization for purposes
of collective bargaining. Without the shield of an organization, it will also expose them
to the exploitations of management.
As held in UP vs Ferrer-Calleja, “[T]he dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the

nature of the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working conditions
of the academic and non-academic personnel dictate the separation of these two
categories of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The formation of two
separate bargaining units, the first consisting of the rank-and-file non-academic
employees, and the second, of the rank-and-file academic employees, is the set-up
that will best assure to all the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining
rights.”

Golden Farms Inc. Vs Secretary of Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golden Farms Inc. Vs Secretary of Labor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Golden Farms Inc. Vs Secretary of Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F) Test to determine bargaining unit

Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor

Petitioner Golden Farms, Inc., is a corporation engaged in the production and

Respondent PFL opposed petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss. It countered that the

Issue: whether or not petitioner’s monthly paid rank-and-file employees can

A “bargaining unit” has been defined as a group of employees of a given employer,

As held in UP vs Ferrer-Calleja, “[T]he dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the

You might also like