[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
197 views8 pages

Golden Farms Inc Vs Secretary of Labor

Golden Farms, Inc. challenged a petition by the Progressive Federation of Labor (PFL) to hold a certification election for Golden Farms' monthly paid office and technical rank-and-file employees. Golden Farms argued the employees were already represented and the PFL was not properly organized. The PFL countered that the employees were excluded from the existing agreement. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition for a certification election. The court ruled the monthly paid employees could constitute a separate bargaining unit from the daily paid field workers due to their different job duties, conditions, pay rates and skills. Forming a separate unit was warranted to protect this distinct group of employees and allow them to organize for collective bargaining purposes.

Uploaded by

Janno Sangalang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
197 views8 pages

Golden Farms Inc Vs Secretary of Labor

Golden Farms, Inc. challenged a petition by the Progressive Federation of Labor (PFL) to hold a certification election for Golden Farms' monthly paid office and technical rank-and-file employees. Golden Farms argued the employees were already represented and the PFL was not properly organized. The PFL countered that the employees were excluded from the existing agreement. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition for a certification election. The court ruled the monthly paid employees could constitute a separate bargaining unit from the daily paid field workers due to their different job duties, conditions, pay rates and skills. Forming a separate unit was warranted to protect this distinct group of employees and allow them to organize for collective bargaining purposes.

Uploaded by

Janno Sangalang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

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.
Facts:
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.
Facts:
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.’
Ruling:
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

You might also like