G.R. No. 157086 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, VS. THE LEPANTO CAPATAZ UNION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and a certification election among the capataz employees of the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company is hereby ordered conducted, subject to the usual pre-election and inclusion/exclusion proceedings, with the following choices: Lepanto Capataz Union; and No Union. The employer is directed to submit to this office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof a copy of the certified list of its capataz employees and the payroll covering the said bargaining unit for the last three (3) months prior to the issuance hereof. SO DECIDED. [6] Lepanto appealed to the DOLE Secretary. [7] On July 12, 2000, then DOLE Undersecretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz (Baldoz), acting by authority of the DOLE Secretary, affirmed the ruling of Med-Arbiter Lontoc, [8] pertinently stating as follows: x x x x The bargaining unit sought to be represented by the appellee are the capataz employees of the appellant. There is no other labor organization of capatazes within the employer unit except herein appellant. Thus, appellant is an unorganized establishment in so far as the bargaining unit of capatazes is concerned. In accordance with the last paragraph of Section 11, Rule XI, Department Order No. 9 which provides that in a petition filed by a legitimate labor organization involving an unorganized establishment, the Med-Arbiter shall, pursuant to Article 257 of the Code, automatically order the conduct of certification election after determining that the petition has complied with all requirements under Section 1, 2 and 4 of the same rules and that none of the grounds for dismissal thereof exists, the order for the conduct of a certification election is proper. Finally, as to the issue of whether the Med-Arbiter exhibited ignorance of the law when she directed the conduct of a certification election when appellee prays for the conduct of a consent election, let it be stressed that appellee seeks to be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all capataz employees of appellant. There are two modes by which this can be achieved, one is by voluntary recognition and two, by consent or certification election. Voluntary recognition under Rule X, Department Order No. 9 is a mode whereby the employer voluntarily recognizes the union as the bargaining representative of all the members in the bargaining unit sought to be represented. Consent and certification election under Rules XI and XII of Department Order No. 9 is a mode whereby the members of the bargaining unit decide whether they want a bargaining representative and if so, who they want it to be. The difference between a consent election and a certification election is that the conduct of a consent election is agreed upon by the parties to the petition while the conduct of a certification election is ordered by the Med-Arbiter. In this case, the appellant withdrew its consent and opposed the conduct of the election. Therefore, the petition necessarily becomes o