Scribd
Upload
74 views2 pages

S.S. Ventures International v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union

The Court ruled that including 82 terminated employees in the union's membership did not constitute fraud to cancel the union's registration. While including ineligible employees could be grounds for decertification, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud. Here, the allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation lacked basis. Additionally, subtracting the 82 employees still left over the 20% minimum membership threshold. Finally, double entries of 3 signatures appeared to be human error without malice and not sufficiently grave or compelling to cancel the union's registration.

Uploaded by

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

S.S. Ventures International v. S.S. Ventures Labor Union

The Court ruled that including 82 terminated employees in the union's membership did not constitute fraud to cancel the union's registration. While including ineligible employees could be grounds for decertification, it must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud. Here, the allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation lacked basis. Additionally, subtracting the 82 employees still left over the 20% minimum membership threshold. Finally, double entries of 3 signatures appeared to be human error without malice and not sufficiently grave or compelling to cancel the union's registration.

Uploaded by

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

S.S. Ventures International v. S.S.

Ventures Labor Union, July 23, 2008


Doctrine: To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that it included ineligible employees in its
membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud.
For fraud and misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of
union members.

The Labor Union of Ventures filed with DOLE a petition for certification election on behalf of the
employees of Ventures.  542 signatures, 82 of which were terminated, appeared on the
document supporting the petition. Ventures filed a petition to cancel the certificate of
registration, alleging that the Union maliciously included the names of 82 former employees no
longer connected with the company in its list of members who attended the organizational
meeting and in the adoption/ratification of its constitution and by-laws. Ventures further averred
that the Union deliberately twice entered the signatures of 3 persons. Also, that the application
for registration was not supported by at least 20% of the R&F employees, because more or less
82 of the 500 signatures were invalid, the remaining valid signatures would only be 418, which
is very much short of the 439 minimum required by the Labor Code.

Is the Union’s act of including the 82 terminated employees of Ventures in its membership
constitutes fraud, which is a ground for the cancellation of union registration? NO

The Court ruled in the negative. The right to form, join, or assist a union is protected by Art. 13,
Sec. 3 of the Constitution and such right, according to Art. 246 of the Labor Code, shall not be
abridged. Among the grounds for cancellation of the certificate of registration is the commission
of fraud and misrepresentation, in connection with the adoption or ratification of the Union. To
decertify a union, it is not enough to show that it included ineligible employees in its
membership. It must also be shown that there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud.

Ventures alleged that the 82 employees were unwilling or harassed signatories to the
attendance sheet of the organizational meeting. The mostly undated written statements,
submitted by Ventures 7 months after it filed its petition for cancellation of registration, partake
of the nature of withdrawal of union membership executed after the Union's filing of a petition for
certification. The employees’ withdrawal from a labor union made before the filing of the petition
for certification election is presumed voluntary, while withdrawal after the filing of such petition is
considered to be involuntary and does not affect the same. Thus, the withdrawal in the present
case cannot work to nullify the registration of the union.

The assailed inclusion of the said 82 individuals to the meeting is not really fatal to the Union's
cause since the allegations of falsification of signatures or misrepresentation are without basis.
The Court need not delve into the question of whether the 82 dismissed individuals were still
qualified Union members. The procedure for acquiring or losing union membership and the
determination of who are qualified or disqualified to be members are matters internal to the
union and flow from its right to self-organization. 

In its union records on file with the BLR, the Union submitted the names of 542 members. This
number easily complied with the 20% requirement, be it 1,928 or 2,202 employees in the
establishment. Even subtracting the 82 employees from 542 leaves 460 union members, still
within 440 or 20% of the maximum total of 2,202 rank-and-file employees. The issue
surrounding the involvement of the 82 employees is a matter of membership or voter eligibility. It
is not a ground to cancel union registration. 
Further, the bare fact that 3 signatures 2x appeared on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting is not valid reason to cancel the Certificate of Registration. The double
entries are no more than normal human error, effected without malice. For fraud and
misrepresentation to be grounds for cancellation, the nature of the fraud and misrepresentation
must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union members.

You might also like