Catalonia, Samantha
BSBM HRM 3C
HRMT 80
Activity 3
1. Belyca Corporation vs. Calleja GR no. 77395
Facts:
• Belyca Corporation is engaged in poultry raising, piggery, and agricultural crop
planting.
• Associated Labor Union (ALU)-TUCP, a legitimate labor organization, filed a petition
on June 3, 1986, with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) in Cagayan de
Oro City.
• The petition sought direct certification as the sole bargaining agent for all rank-and-file
employees of Belyca Corporation’s Livestock and Agro-Division, which employed
around 205 workers.
• The petition was filed due to the absence of a collective bargaining agreement and no
certification election in the past twelve months.
• Despite several hearings, no amicable settlement was reached, and the parties
submitted their position papers.
• ALU-TUCP claimed a majority of employees had signed membership with the union
and requested recognition as the sole bargaining agent.
• Belyca Corporation argued that many employees were seasonal or casual and that the
statutory requirements for a certification election were not met.
• The Labor Arbiter granted the certification election on August 18, 1986.
• Belyca Corporation appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations, which denied the
appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
• The case was then brought to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
• Whether the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate bargaining unit.
• Whether the statutory requirement of 30% (now 20%) of the employees in the
proposed bargaining unit asking for a certification election had been strictly complied
with.
Ruling:
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Livestock and Agro-Division employees constitute a
separate bargaining unit.
• The Court affirmed that the statutory requirement for holding a certification election
had been met.
2. Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz GR no. L- 30241
Facts:
• The case involves a labor dispute between the Mactan Workers Union and the
Associated Labor Union (ALU) over a profit-sharing agreement.
• The dispute occurred at Cebu Shipyard & Engineering Works, Inc. in Lapulapu City.
• On November 28, 1964, Cebu Shipyard entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with ALU, which included a profit-sharing bonus for employees.
• The bonus was to be distributed in two installments: the first in March and the second
in June.
• Members of the Mactan Workers Union did not receive their shares of the second
installment because they refused to collect it from ALU’s office.
• ALU returned the uncollected shares to the company and advised against distributing
the amount to Mactan Workers Union members without a court order.
• The Mactan Workers Union filed a complaint in the City Court of Lapulapu to recover
P4,035.82.
• The City Court ruled in favor of the Mactan Workers Union, and this decision was
affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Cebu on February 22, 1968.
• ALU appealed the decision.
Issue:
• Does the collective bargaining agreement extend its benefits to all workers in the
bargaining unit, including non-members of the union?
• Did the City Court of Lapulapu have jurisdiction over the case?
• Did the Mactan Workers Union have the legal standing to file the suit on behalf of its
members?
Ruling:
• Yes, the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement extend to all workers in the
bargaining unit, including non-members of the union.
• Yes, the City Court of Lapulapu had jurisdiction over the case.
• Yes, the Mactan Workers Union had the legal standing to file the suit on behalf of its
members.
3. De Lasalle University vs. DLSU Employees Association GR no. 109002
Facts:
• The case involves De La Salle University (DLSU) and the De La Salle University
Employees Association (DLSUEA), a union of regular non-academic rank-and-file
employees.
• The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired on December 22, 1989.
• After failed negotiations for a new CBA, DLSUEA filed a Notice of Strike, leading to
partial issue resolution.
• Unresolved issues were submitted to voluntary arbitrator Buenaventura Magsalin.
• Issues included: scope of the bargaining unit, union security clause, security of tenure,
salary increases, union leave benefits, and agreement duration.
• On January 19, 1993, the arbitrator rendered a decision on these issues.
• Both parties filed petitions for certiorari, leading to case consolidation before the
Supreme Court
Issue:
• Classification of computer operators and discipline officers as confidential employees.
• Inclusion of College of St. Benilde employees in DLSU’s bargaining unit.
• Inclusion of a union shop clause in the CBA.
• Union’s proposal for “last-in-first-out” method in layoffs, terminations, and transfers.
• Requirement for DLSU to grant a second round of wage increases based on the
proposed budget.
• Union’s proposals for deloading the union president, improved leave benefits, and
indefinite union leave with pay.
• Legitimacy of the multi-sectoral committee in determining salary increases and fringe
benefits.
• Determination of the 70% share in incremental tuition proceeds as the sole source of
salary increases and fringe benefits.
Ruling:
• Computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees and should
be included in the bargaining unit.
• Employees of the College of St. Benilde should be excluded from DLSU’s bargaining
unit.
• A union shop clause should be included in the CBA.
• The Union’s “last-in-first-out” proposal was denied.
• The ruling on wage increases based on the proposed budget was found to be in grave
abuse of discretion and remanded for resolution based on audited financial statements.
• The Union’s proposals for deloading, improved leave benefits, and indefinite union
leave with pay were rejected.
• The multi-sectoral committee is the legitimate group for determining salary increases
and fringe benefits.
• The 70% share in incremental tuition proceeds as the sole source of salary increases
and fringe benefits was deemed unnecessary and irrelevant.
References:
1. De La Salle University v. DLSU Employees Association. (n.d.).
[Link]
q=de+lasalle+university+vs+dlsu+employees+#_
2. Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz. (n.d.).
[Link]
q=mactan+workers#_
3. Belyca Corporation v. Calleja. (n.d.). [Link]
corp-v-calleja?q=belyca+vs#_