Lee Vs Samahang Manggagawa

ERSON ANG LEE v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION [ G.R. No.
193816, 2016 ]
FACTS
Petitioner Erson Ang Lee, through Super Lamination, is a duly registered entity principally engaged in the
business of providing lamination services to the general public. Respondent Samahan ng mga Manggagawa
ng Super Lamination Services (Union A) is a legitimate labor organization, which is also a local chapter affiliate
of the National Federation of Labor Unions — Kilusang Mayo Uno. It appears that Super Lamination is a sole
proprietorship under petitioner's name, while Express Lamination and Express Coat are duly incorporated
entities separately registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Union A filed a Petition for
Certification Election (PCE) to represent all the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination. Notably on the
same date, Express Lamination Workers’ Union (Union B) also filed a PCE to represent all the rank-and-file
employees of Express Lamination. The Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Express Coat Enterprise, Inc.
(Union C) filed a PCE to represent the rank-and-file employees of Express Coat.
Super Lamination, Express Lamination and Express Coat (Companies) all represented by one counsel filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship (EER) between these
establishments and the bargaining units that Unions A, B and C seek to represent as well as these unions’
respective members. Super Lamination posited that a majority of the persons who were enumerated in the list
of members and officers of Union A were not its employees but were employed by either Express Lamination
or Express Coat. All three PCEs of the Unions were subsequently denied. It was ruled on the ground that there
was no existing EER between the members of the unions and the companies concerned.
On appeal before the Office of the DOLE Secretary: ruled in favor of the unions and granted the PCEs. DOLE
found that Super Lamination, Express Lamination, and Express Coat were sister companies that had a
common
human resource department responsible for hiring and disciplining the employees of the three companies. The
same department was found to have also given them daily instructions on how to go about their work and
where to report for work. It also found that the three companies involved constantly rotated their workers, and
that the latter's identification cards had only one signatory. These circumstances showed that the companies
were engaged in a work-pooling scheme, in light of which they might be considered as one and the same entity
for the purpose of determining the appropriate bargaining unit in a certification election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rank-and-file employees of Super Lamination, Express Lamination and Express Coat
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
Held:
YES. The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard whereby a
unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in
wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. We have ruled that geographical
location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not
sacrificed.
In the present case, there was communal interest among the rankand-file employees of the three companies
based on the finding that they were constantly rotated to all three companies, and that they performed the
same or similar duties whenever rotated. Therefore, aside from geographical location, their employment status
and working conditions were so substantially similar as to justify a conclusion that they shared a community of
interest. This finding is consistent with the policy in favor of a single employer unit, unless the circumstances
require otherwise. The more solid the employees are, the stronger is their bargaining capacity.
As correctly observed by the lower courts, while there is no prohibition on the mere act of engaging in a work-
pooling scheme as sister companies, that act will not be tolerated, and the sister companies' separate juridical
personalities will be disregarded, if they use that scheme to defeat the workers' right to collective bargaining.
The employees' right to collectively bargain with their employers is necessary to promote harmonious labor
management relations in the interest of sound and stable industrial peace.

Lee Vs Samahang Manggagawa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Vs Samahang Manggagawa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Lee Vs Samahang Manggagawa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERSON ANG LEE v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER LAMINATION [ G.R. No.

You might also like