Samahan NG Manggagawa Sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Topic: Scope and Extent of the Right to Self-Organization
1. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

G.R. No. 211145 October 14, 2015
Carpio, J.
DOCTRINE: The right to self-organization is not limited to unionism. Workers may also form or join an
association for mutual aid and protection and for other legitimate purposes.
FACTS:
On February 16, 2010: the Samahan through Alipio filed an application for registration of its name
“Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard” with DOLE. The application stated that the
association had a total of 120 members. Ten days later, the DOLE-Pampanga issued the certificate of
registration. On March 15, 2010, Hanjin prayed for the cancellation of registration of Samahan on the ground
that its members did not fall under any of the types of workers enumerated in the second sentence of Art.
243 of the Labor Code. The enumeration included only ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, rural workers, self-
employed, and those without definite employers may form a workers’ association. Hanjin also posited that
1/3 of the members of the association had definite employers and the continued existence of the association
would prejudice the company. Hanjin added that Samahan committed a misrepresentation in connection
with the list of members who took part in the ratification of their constitution and by-laws. Hanjin claimed that
Samahan made it appear that its members were all qualified to become members of the worker’s
association. The DOLE Regional Director ruled in favor of Hanjin. The Regional Director found that the
preamble as stated in the Constitution and by-laws of Samahan, was an admission that all its members
were employees of Hanjin: “KAMI, ang mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard ay naglalayong na isulong
ang pagbpapabuti…” The same claim was made by Samahan it its motion to dismiss, but it failed to adduce
evidence that the remaining 63 members were employees of Hanjin.
Regional Director Bihis stated that the remaining employees should have formed a labor union for
collective bargaining instead. Aggrieved, Samahan filed an appeal to the Bureau of Labor Relations and
pointed out that the words “Hanjin Shipyard” was used to refer to a workplace and not as an employer or
company. When a shipyard was put up in Subic, Zambales, it became known as Hanjin Shipyard. Further,
the remaining 63 members stated that they were either working or had worked at Hanjin therefore, no
misrepresentation. The Bureau of Labor Relations granted Samahan’s appeal and reversed the decision of
the RD, but directed Samahan to remove “Hanjin Shipyard” from name of association. It stated that the law
clearly afforded the right to self-organization to all workers including those without definite employers but
subject to the limitation that it is only for mutual aid and protection. It is NOT stated anywhere that the right
to self-organization is limited to collective bargaining. The BLR stated that there was no misrepresentation
– “kami ang manggagawa sa Hanjin shipyard”, if translated is: “We, the workers AT Hanjin Shipyard…” .
The use of the preposition “at” is intended to describe a place. At most, the use by Samahan of the name
Hanjin Shipyard would only warrant a change in the name of the association.
Upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the BLR and held that the registration of Samahan is
contrary to the Labor Code. It stressed that only 57 out of 120 members were actually working at Hanjin
while the phrase in the preamble created an impression that ALL members were employees of Hanjin
which is a clear proof of misrepresentation.
ISSUE/S: WON the CA erred in cancelling the registration of Samahan
HELD + RATIO:
YES. Right to self-organization includes the right to form a union, workers’ association and labor
management councils. More often than not, to right to self-organization connotes unionism. However,
workers can also form and join a workers’ association as well as labor-management councils. Art. XIII of
the Constitution, specifically Sec. 3, states that he State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization. In the same vein, Art. 3 of the Labor Code states that the State shall assure the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of
work. Art. 252 of the Labor Code provides that the right to self-organization includes the right to form, join
or assist labor organizations fer the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and
protection. This is in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and voluntary organization of a
strong and united labor movement as well as to make sure that workers participate in policy and decision-
making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
The right to form a union or association or to self-organize comprehends to notions, the liberty or
freedom, that is, the absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may act for himself
without being prevented by law; and the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he pleases, join
or refrain from joining an association. As can be gleaned from the aforementioned provisions, the law
expressly allows and even encourages the formation of labor organizations. A labor organization has 2
broad rights: (1) to bargain collectively, and (2) to deal with the employer concerning terms and
conditions of employment. To elaborate, (1) to bargain collectively is a right given to registered unions
and (2) to deal with employers is a generic description of interaction between ER and EE concerning
grievances, wages, work hours, etc., even if the group is NOT registered with DOLE.
A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective bargaining, while a
workers’ association is an organization of workers formed for the mutual aid and protection of its
members. The difference between the two rights is one of organization, composition and operation. It is
misleading to say that collective bargaining is the end-goal of employee representation and the real aim
is employee participation in whatever form it may appear. In unions which allow collective bargaining,
there must be an EE-ER relationship; in contrast, the existence of said relationship is not mandatory in
the formation of a workers’ association.
The Court underscored the right to choose whether to form or join a union or workers’ association
belongs to workers themselves. In the case at bar, the SC cannot sanction the opinion of the CA that
Samahan should have formed a union instead because the choice belonged to it. It is evident that just
as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, no one should be compelled to
exercise such a conferred right. The right to self-organize however, is subject to certain limitations as
provided by law. Case in point, managerial employees cannot join, assist or form any labor union. The
court also cannot subscribe to Hanjin’s position that Samahan should have formed a union because they
have definite employers. There is no provision in the Labor Code which states that employees with
definite employers may only join, assist, or form labor unions. Art. 243 of the Labor Code states that
ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self- employed people, rural workers and those without any
definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. Said provision
should also be read in harmony with Rule II of DO 40-43 Sec. 1 which states that All other workers,
including ambulant, intermittent and other workers, the self-employed, rural workers and those without
any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection and other
legitimate purposes except collective bargaining. Clearly, there is NOTHING in the rules which provides
that workers with definite employers can only form unions and NOT workers’ associations. The Court
agrees with Samahan that they may form a workers’ association.

Samahan NG Manggagawa Sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samahan NG Manggagawa Sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Samahan NG Manggagawa Sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Scope and Extent of the Right to Self-Organization

1. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin v. Bureau of Labor Relations

You might also like