Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Laguesma

Case: 6. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs.
Laguesma wherein petitioner agreed to formally regularize all the remaining

Topic: Petition Before Freedom Period alleged project employees with at least one year of service pending
the final outcome of the certification election case. Thereafter, 686
Facts: Petitioner Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. is additional regular project employees were regularized effective
engaged in the construction and fabrication business and conducts December 1, 1990 in pursuance to said Agreement.
its construction business in different construction sites here and
abroad while its fabrication operations are conducted by its Steel On December 6, 1990, petitioner received a letter from URFA
and Marine Structures Group at its Batangas Marine and Fabrication informing the former about the admission into URFA of the
Yard (“BMFY” for brevity) in Bauan, Batangas where the steel membership of 410 regular project employees who were formally
structures and other heavy marine works are fabricated. regularized by the petitioner effective November 1, 1990.
In the exercise of its management prerogative, petitioner has On that same date, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on
adopted the practice of hiring project employees when existing the Resolution dated November 22, 1990 alleging that the
fabrication capacity cannot absorb increases in job orders for steel employees sought to be represented by the private respondent
structures and other heavy construction works. LAKAS-NFL are regular employees of the petitioner and are deemed
included in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement of the
The project employees are covered by the Project Worker/Reliever regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner which motion was
Employment Agreements which indicate the specific projects to subsequently denied by the public respondent Undersecretary
which they are assigned and the duration of their employment. Laguesma in an Order dated December 11, 1990.
Upon the expiration of their contracts/agreements, the employment
of these employees is automatically terminated unless the projects Issue: W/N DOLE erred in applying the CONTRACT-BAR rule and
to which they are assigned have not yet been completed, in which failing to consider that the bargaining unit of the alleged regular
case, they are rehired for the remainder of the project. The positions workers has ceased to exist by virtue of the regularization of all said
occupied by the regular rank-and-file employees and the project workers
employees are basically similar in nature and are directly related to
the main line of petitioners business. Held: Yes.
Section 1 of Article II of petitioner’s Collective Bargaining Agreement
On June 8, 1990, petitioner executed a Collective Bargaining with URFA defined appropriate bargaining unit as follows:
Agreement with the AG&P United Rank & File Association („URFA,‰ ARTICLE II :
for brevity) which is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the Sec. 1. Appropriate Bargaining Unit The appropriate bargaining unit
regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Said Collective covered by this Agreement consists of those regular rank-and-file
Bargaining Agreement was subsequently registered on July 9, 1990 employees of the COMPANY who have remained as such up to the
with the Bureau of Labor Relations and Certificate of Registration date of execution of this Agreement, as well as those who may
No. BLR-90-0131 was issued. hereafter acquire the same status. It is hereby understood and
agreed that the following are not within the appropriate bargaining
On June 29, 1990, private respondent Lakas ng Manggagawa sa unit and, therefore, this Agreement is not applicable to them, to wit:
AG&P-SMSG-National Federation of Labor (“LAKAS-NFL” for brevity)
filed a Petition for Certification Election with the Med-Arbitration a. Executives, division department and section heads, staff
Unit to be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the members, managerial employees, and executive secretaries;
regular non-project employees of the Steel and Marine Structure at b. Workers hired by the COMPANY as project employees as
the BMFY representing approximately 1,000 employees or that a contemplated by existing laws including relievers of regular
certification be conducted among said employees employees who are sent abroad are not covered by this Contract.
Provided, however, that regular employees who are assigned as
Med-Arbiter: Oordered that certification election among the regular relievers shall continue to be covered by this Contract, and provided
“Project Workers”/employees of Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company further that relievers who are assigned to regular positions which
of Manila, Inc. at its Steel and Marine Structures Group (AG&P- may become vacant shall be duly considered for such regular
SMSG) be conducted immediately. positions after attaining the six months probationary period.
c. Security personnel.”
On October 11, 1990, petitioner filed an appeal with the Department
of Labor and Employment. Although the aforementioned definition does not include
petitioner’s regular project employees in the coverage of the existing
On October 26, 1990, 691 alleged project employees sought to be Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the URFA,
represented by private respondent LAKAS- NFL were formally issued the regularization of all the regular project employees with at least
regular employment appointments by the petitioner effective one year of service and the subsequent membership of said
November 1, 1990 which were accepted by said project employees. employees with the URFA mean that the alleged regular project
DOLE: Denied appeal for lack of merit employees whom respondent LAKAS-NFL seeks to represent are, in
fact, regular employees by contemplation of law and included in the
On November 28, 1990, petitionerÊs project employees at its SMSG appropriate bargaining unit of said Collective Bargaining Agreement
site who were not given regular employment appointment on consequently, the bargaining unit which respondent LAKAS-NFL
October 26, 1990 went on strike and completely paralyzed seeks to represent has already ceased to exist.
petitionerÊs operations in Bauan, Batangas. Said strike was settled
in a conciliation conference convened by the National Conciliation The Labor Code provides:
and
Mediation Board on December 8, 1990 when an Agreement was “Art. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election. The Bureau shall not
reached by the petitioner and private respondent LAKAS-NFL entertain any petition for certification election or any other action
which may disturb the administration of duty registered existing
collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under
Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.” Paragraph 2 of Section 3,
Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations likewise
provides: “If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly
registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code, a petition for
certification election or a motion for intervention can only be
entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such
agreement.”
Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective

Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA, which is
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular
rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular
project employees with more than one year of service, bars any
other labor organization from filing a petition for certification
election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the

enactment of Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to
ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees
during the existence of the collective bargaining agreement.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, finding the petition meritorious, the

assailed Resolution of November 22, 1990 and the Order dated
December 11, 1990 are hereby annuled and set aside. The
temporary restraining order issued is made permanent. Costs
against respondents.
SO ORDERED.

Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Laguesma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Laguesma

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

Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Laguesma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 6. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs.

Laguesma wherein petitioner agreed to formally regularize all the remaining

Consequently, the existence of a duly registered Collective

To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, finding the petition meritorious, the

You might also like