Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Yokohama Tire Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kimsey Clyde Devoma
    This case involved a certification election held among employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines to determine whether they wished to be represented by the Yokohama Employee's Union. Yokohama challenged the votes of 78 dismissed employees, while the union challenged 68 votes of newly regularized employees. The Court ruled that it was proper to count the votes of dismissed employees as their dismissal cases were still pending, and that counting the challenged votes would not change the election result as the union had received a majority of votes. The certification of the union as bargaining representative was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yokohama Tire Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kimsey Clyde Devoma
    68 views1 page
    This case involved a certification election held among employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines to determine whether they wished to be represented by the Yokohama Employee's Union. Yokohama challenged the votes of 78 dismissed employees, while the union challenged 68 votes of newly regularized employees. The Court ruled that it was proper to count the votes of dismissed employees as their dismissal cases were still pending, and that counting the challenged votes would not change the election result as the union had received a majority of votes. The certification of the union as bargaining representative was upheld.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a certification election held among employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines to determine whether they wished to be represented by the Yokohama Employee's Union. Yokohama challenged the votes of 78 dismissed employees, while the union challenged 68 votes of newly regularized employees. The Court ruled that it was proper to count the votes of dismissed employees as their dismissal cases were still pending, and that counting the challenged votes would not change the election result as the union had received a majority of votes. The certification of the union as bargaining representative was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    Yokohama Tire Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kimsey Clyde Devoma
    This case involved a certification election held among employees of Yokohama Tire Philippines to determine whether they wished to be represented by the Yokohama Employee's Union. Yokohama challenged the votes of 78 dismissed employees, while the union challenged 68 votes of newly regularized employees. The Court ruled that it was proper to count the votes of dismissed employees as their dismissal cases were still pending, and that counting the challenged votes would not change the election result as the union had received a majority of votes. The certification of the union as bargaining representative was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc.

    vs Yokohama Employee’s Union


    G.R. No. 159553. December 10, 2007.

    FACTS: On October 7, 1999, respondent Union filed a petition for certification election among the rank-
    and-file employees of Yokohama. The MA dismissed said petition, however the Secretary of DOLE
    ordered the election with (1) “YEU” and (2) “No Union” as choices. The election held on November 23,
    2001 yielded the following result. YEU – 131 votes; No union – 117 votes.

    Yokohama challenged 78 votes cast by dismissed employees. On the other hand, the Union challenged
    68 votes case by newly regularized R-A-F employees and another 5 votes by alleged supervisory-
    trainees. Yokohama company formalized its protest and raised as an issue the eligibility to vote of the 78
    dismissed employees, while the Union submitted only a handwritten manifestation during the election.

    To which the MA resolved the protests ordering: (1) the appreciation of the votes of the 65 dismissed
    employees who contested their dismissal before the NLRC shall be suspended until final disposition of
    their complaint for illegal dismissal; and (2) The votes of the 68 newly-regularized R-A-F employees
    shall be appreciated.

    Yokohama appealed but the DOLE Acting Secretary denied the same and partially granting the appeal
    of union, he modified as follows: (1) The votes of dismissed employees who contested their dismissal
    before NLRC shall be appreciated; and (2) The votes of the 68 newly regularized R-A-F employees shall
    be excluded.

    The CA affirmed that the 78 employees who contested their dismissal was entitled to vote under Art.
    212(f). However, disallowed the votes of the 68 newly regularized employees since they were not
    included in the voters’ list submitted during the July 12, 2001 pre-election conference. That Yokohama’s
    insistence on their inclusion lends suspicion that it wanted to create a company union. CA further said that
    the union’s handwritten manifestation during the election was substantial compliance with the rule on
    protest. (Procedural issues follow).

    ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper to appreciate the votes of the dismissed employees.

    RULING: YES.

    Section 2, Rule XII of the rules Implementing Book V of the LC clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously
    allows a dismissed employee to vote in the certification election if the case contesting the dismissal is still
    pending at the time of the election.

    Applied in the instant case, votes of employees with illegal dismissal cases were challenged by petitioner
    although their case were still pending at the time of the certification election. Furthermore, even the new
    rule under Rule IX explicitly stated that without final judgement declaring the legality of dismissal,
    dismissed employees are eligible or qualified voters.

    Finally, there is no need to resolve the other issues for being moot. Anyway, the 68 votes of the newly
    regularized R-A-F employees, even if counted in favor of “No Union,” will not materially alter the result.

    The certification election is already a fait accompli, and clearly petitioner’s R-A-F employees had chosen
    respondent as their bargaining representative.

    You might also like