Scribd
Upload
486 views2 pages

Katipunan NG Mga Manggagawa Sa Daungan v. Ferrer-Calleja

KAMADA claimed to be the sole bargaining agent for OTSI workers and concluded a CBA with the company. ASTEUO, also composed of OTSI workers, then registered as a union. KAMADA sued to cancel ASTEUO's registration. The med-arbiter ruled in favor of cancellation, but the BLR reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the BLR's decision, finding that: (1) the law does not prevent registration of other unions once one is registered; (2) the cited provision does not apply to union registration; and (3) the one company-one union policy has exceptions and must yield to employee rights to organize.

Uploaded by

div_mac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
486 views2 pages

Katipunan NG Mga Manggagawa Sa Daungan v. Ferrer-Calleja

KAMADA claimed to be the sole bargaining agent for OTSI workers and concluded a CBA with the company. ASTEUO, also composed of OTSI workers, then registered as a union. KAMADA sued to cancel ASTEUO's registration. The med-arbiter ruled in favor of cancellation, but the BLR reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the BLR's decision, finding that: (1) the law does not prevent registration of other unions once one is registered; (2) the cited provision does not apply to union registration; and (3) the one company-one union policy has exceptions and must yield to employee rights to organize.

Uploaded by

div_mac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA DAUNGAN (KAMADA) v. HON.

PURA FERRER-CALLEJA and


ASSOCIATED SKILLED AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION (ASTEUO)
GR No. 104692 Sept. 5, 1997

FACTS:
Petitioner KAMADA claims to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all workers in Ocean Terminal Services,
Inc. (OTSI). After a certification election, it concluded a collective bargaining agreement with the company. Soon
thereafter, private respondent Associated Skilled and Technical Employees (ASTEUO), allegedly composed also of
OTSI workers, was registered.

Upon learning of such fact, KAMADA filed a suit to cancel the registration of ASTEUO on the ground that the latters
members were already covered by the existing collective bargaining agreement. ASTEUO, on the other hand, argued
that its registration was made during the freedom period when there was no collective bargaining agreement
concluded yet.

The med-arbiter cancelled ASTEUOs registration and ruled that the organization of another union covering the same
workers can no longer be considered a labor protective activity under PD 1391 and that this will even be against the
present policy of one union in one company.
Upon appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations, the med-arbiters decision was reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not ASTEUOs registration should be cancelled on the grounds that:
a) that there was already an existing collective bargaining agent when it obtained its registration;
b) that it cannot be considered a labor productive activity under PD 1391, specifically under paragraph 6
thereof; and
c) that it is against the one company-one union policy

HELD:
NO. As to the first ground, the Court that the law does not contemplate that once a union of a bargaining unit has
registered with the DOLE, it will prevent all other would-be union from registering. Also, Sec. 3, Rule V, Book V of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code does not prohibit the registration of a new union but the holding
of a certification election within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election result. ASTEUOs
registration was effected one month before the result of the certification election was issued. Hence, there was yet
no collective bargaining agent when it was registered as a union.

As to the second ground, the provision cited by KAMADA deals only with petitions for certification election,
intervention or disaffiliation; it has nothing to do with registration of a union.
As to the third ground, the policy has its exceptions. The one company-one union policy must yield to the right of
the employees to form unions or associations for purposes not contrary to law, to self-organization and to enter into
collective bargaining negotiations, among others, which the Constitution guarantees.

You might also like