EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-28223. August 30, 1968.]

MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR UNION SA PHILIPPINE

NATIONAL RAILWAYS , petitioner, vs . COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, and SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CALOOCAN
SHOPS , respondents.

Sisenando Villaluz for petitioner.

Gregorio E. Fajardo for respondent Samahan ng mga Mangagawa sa Caloocan Shops.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; LABOR

UNION; FORMATION AND SEPARATION OF BARGAINING UNIT; APPLICATION OF
GLOBE DOCTRINE IS PREMATURE. — Under the "Globe doctrine" (Globe Machine &
Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294) applied in Democratic Labor Union vs. Cebu Stevedoring
Co., L-10321, 28 February 1958, bargaining units may be formed through separation of
new units from existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers' desire to
have their own representatives. In the case at bar, the appeal of the Mechanical
Department Labor Union, questioning the applicability under the circumstances of the
Globe doctrine of considering the will of the employees in determining what union
should represent them, is premature, since the result of the ordered plebiscite among
the workers of the Caloocan Shops (who desire to form a new bargaining unit) may be
adverse to the formation of a separate unit, in which event, all questions raised in this
case would be rendered moot and academic.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AND SEPARATE BARGAINING
UNIT IN ONE DEPARTMENT OF THE SAME COMPANY. — Appellant contends that the
application of the "Globe doctrine" is not warranted because the workers of the
Caloocan Shops (one of the four main divisions or units of the Mechanical Department
of the PNR) do not require different skills from the rest of the workers in the
Mechanical Department of the Railway Company. This question is primarily one of fact.
The Industrial Court has found that there is a basic difference, in that those in the
Caloocan shops not only have a community of interest and working conditions but
perform major repairs of railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment and machineries
found in said ships, while the others only perform minor repairs. It is easy to
understand, therefore, that the workers in the Caloocan shops require special skill in the
use of heavy equipment and machinery su cient to set them apart from the rest of the
workers. In addition, the record shows that the collective bargaining agreements
negotiated by the appellant union have been in existence for more than two (2) years;
hence, such agreements can not constitute a bar to the determination, by proper
elections, of a new bargaining representative.
3. ID.; ID.; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS HAS DISCRETION IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEE GROUPS; REASON THEREFOR. — Republic Act No.
875 has primarily entrusted the prosecution of its policies to the Court of Industrial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Relations, and, in view of its intimate knowledge concerning the facts and
circumstances surrounding the cases brought before it, this Court has repeatedly
upheld the exercise of discretion of the Court of Industrial Relations in matters
concerning the representation of employee groups.

DECISION

REYES, J.B.L. , J : p

Petition by the "Mechanical Department Labor Union sa PNR" for a review of an

order of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No 1475-MC, directing the holding
of a plebiscite election to determine whether the employees at the Caloocan Shops
desire the respondent union, "Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Caloocan Shops", to be
separated from the Mechanical Department Labor Union, with a view to the former
being recognized as a separate bargaining unit.

The case began on 13 February 1965 by a petition of the respondent "Samahan

ng Manggagawa, etc." calling attention to the fact that there were three unions in the
Caloocan shops of the Philippine National Railways: the "Samahan", the "Kapisanan ng
Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company", and the Mechanical Department Labor
Union; that no certi cation election had been held in the last 12 months in the Caloocan
shops; that both the "Samahan" and the Mechanical Department Labor Union had
submitted different labor demands upon the management for which reason a
certi cation election was needed to determine the proper collective bargaining agency
for the Caloocan shop workers.
The petition was opposed by the management as well as by the Mechanical
Department Labor Union, the latter averring that it had been previously certi ed in two
cases as sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees and laborers of the
PNR's mechanical department, and had negotiated two bargaining agreements with
management in 1961 and 1963; that before the expiration of the latter, a renewal
thereof had been negotiated and the contract remained to be signed; that the
"Samahan" had been organized only in 21 January 1965; that the Caloocan shops unit
was not established nor separated from the Mechanical Department unit; that the
"Samahan" is composed mainly of supervisors who had led a pending case to be
declared non- supervisors; and that the purpose of the petition was to disturb the
present smooth working labor management relations.
By an order of 18 August 1967, Judge Arsenio Martinez, after receiving the
evidence, made the following findings:
"The Court, after a cursory examination of the evidence presented made
the following ndings: That petitioner union is composed of workers exclusively
at the Caloocan shops of the Philippine National Railways charged with the
maintenance of rolling stocks for repairs; major repairs of locomotive, engines,
etc. are done in the Caloocan shops while minor ones in the Manila sheds;
workers in the Caloocan shops do not leave their station unlike Manila shop
workers who go out along the routes and lines for repairs; workers both in the
Caloocan shops and Manila sheds are exposed to hazards occasioned by the
nature of their work; that with respect to wages and salaries of employees,
categories under the Job Classi cation and Evaluation Plan of the company
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 apply to all workers both in the Caloocan shops and Manila sheds; administration
over employees, members of petitioner union as well as oppositor is under the
Administrative Division of the company; that from the very nature of their work,
members of petitioner union and other workers of the Mechanical Department
have been under the coverage of the current collective bargaining agreement
which was a result of a certi cation by this Court of the Mechanical Department
Labor union, rst in 1960 and later in 1963. Subsequently, when a latter contract
expired, negotiations for its renewal were had and at the time of the ling of this
petition was already consummated, the only act remaining to be done was to
a x the signatures of the parties thereto; that during the pendency of this
petition, on June 14, 1965, the aforesaid collective bargaining agreement was
signed between the Philippine National Railways and the Mechanical Department
Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways (Manila Railroad Company).

The main issue involved herein is: Whether or not a new unit should be
established, the Caloocan shops, separate and distinct from the rest of the
workers under the Mechanical Department now represented by the Mechanical
Department Labor Union.

The Caloocan Shops, all located at Caloocan City have 360 workers more
or less. It is part and parcel of the whole Mechanical Department of the Philippine
National Railways. The department is composed of four main divisions or units,
namely: Operations, Manila Area and Lines; Locomotive Crew; Motor Car Crew;
and the Shops Rolling Stocks Maintenance. (Exhibits "D" and "D-1").

The Locomotive Crew and Motor Car Crew, though part of the Mechanical
Department, is a separate unit, and is represented by the Union de Maquinistas,
Fogoneros Y Motormen. The workers under the other two main units of the
departments are represented by the Mechanical Department Labor Union. The
workers of the Shops Rolling Stocks Maintenance Division or the Caloocan Shops
now seek to be separated from the rest of the workers of the department and to
be represented by the "Samahan Ng Manggawa sa Caloocan Shops."

There is certainly a community of interest among the workers of the

Caloocan Shops. They are grouped in one place. They work under one or same
working condition, same working time or schedule and are exposed to same
occupational risk.

Though evidence on record shows that workers at the Caloocan Shops

perform the same nature of work as their counterparts in the Manila Shed, the
difference lies in the fact that workers at the Caloocan Shops perform major
repairs of locomotives, rolling stocks, engines, etc., while those in the Manila
Shed, works on minor repairs. Heavy equipment and machineries are found in the
Caloocan Shops."

The trial judge then reviewed the collective bargaining history of the Philippine
National Railways, as follows:
"On several similar instances, this Court allowed the establishment of new
and separate bargaining units in one company, even in one department of the
same company, despite the existence of the same facts and circumstances as
obtaining in the case at bar.
The history of the collective bargaining in the Manila Railroad Company,
now the Philippine National Railways shows that originally, there was only one
bargaining unit in the company, represented by the Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 sa MRR. Under Case No. 237-MC, this Court ordered the establishment of two
additional units, the engine crew and the train crew to be represented by the Union
de Maquinistas, Fogoneros, Ayudante Y Motormen and Union de Empleados de
Trenes respectively. Then in 1961, under Cases Nos. 491-MC, 494-MC and 507-
MC three new separate units were established, namely, the yard crew unit, station
employees unit and engineering department employees unit, respectively, after the
employees concerned voted in a plebiscite conducted by the court for the
separation from existing bargaining units in the company. Then again, under
Case No. 763-MC, a new unit, composed of the Mechanical Department
employees, was established to be represented by the Mechanical Department
Labor Union. Incidentally, the rst attempt of the employees of the Mechanical
Department to be separated as a unit was dismissed by this Court in Case No.
488-MC.

In the case of the yard crew, station employees and the Engineering
Department employees, the Supreme Court sustained the order of this Court in
giving the employees concerned the right to vote and decide whether or not they
desire to be separate units (See G.R. No. L-16292-94, L-16309 and L-16317-18,
November, 1965)."

In view of its ndings and the history of union representation in the railway
company, indicating that bargaining units had been formed through separation of new
units from existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers' desire to have
their own representatives, and relying on the "Globe doctrine" (Globe Machine &
Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294) applied in Democratic Labor Union vs. Cebu Stevedoring
Co., L-10321, 28 February 1958, Judge Martinez held that the employees in the
Caloocan Shops should be given a chance to vote on whether their group should be
separated from that represented by the Mechanical Department Labor Union, and
ordered a plebiscite held for the purpose. The ruling was sustained by the Court en
banc; wherefore, the Mechanical Department Labor Union, appealed to this Court,
questioning the applicability under the circumstances of the "Globe doctrine" of
considering the will of the employees in determining what union should represent them.
Technically, this appeal is premature, since the result of the ordered plebiscite
among the workers of the Caloocan shops may be adverse to the formation of a
separate unit, in which event, as stated in the appealed order, all questions raised in this
case would be rendered moot and academic. Apparently, however, the appellant
Mechanical Department Labor Union takes it for granted that the plebiscite would favor
separation.
We nd no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the ruling under appeal as
would justify our interfering with it. Republic Act No. 875 has primarily entrusted the
prosecution of its policies to the Court of Industrial Relations, and, in view of its
intimate knowledge concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the cases
brought before it, this Court has repeatedly upheld the exercise of discretion of the
Court of Industrial Relations in matters concerning the representation of employee
groups (Manila Paper Mills Employees & Workers' Association vs. C.I.R., 104 Phil. 10;
Benguet Consolidated vs. Bobok Lumber Jack Association, 103 Phil. 1150).
Appellant contends that the application of the "Globe doctrine" is not warranted
because the workers of the Caloocan shops do not require different skills from the rest
of the workers in the Mechanical Department of the Railway Company. This question is
primarily one of fact. The industrial Court has found that there is a basic difference, in
that those in the Caloocan shops not only have a community of interest and working
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 conditions but perform major repairs of railway rolling stock, using heavy equipment
and machineries found in said shops, while the others only perform minor repairs. It is
easy to understand, therefore, that the workers in the Caloocan shops require special
skill in the use of heavy equipment and machinery su cient to set them apart from the
rest of the workers. In addition, the record shows that the collective bargaining
agreements negotiated by the appellant union have been in existence for more than two
(2) years; hence, such agreements can not constitute a bar to the determination, by
proper elections, of a new bargaining representative (PLDT Employees' Union vs.
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., 51 Off. Gaz., 4519).
As to the charge that some of the members of the appellee, "Samahan Ng
Manggagawa", are actually supervisors, it appears that the question of the status of
such members is still pending nal decision; hence, it would not constitute a legal
obstacle to the holding of the plebiscite. At any rate, the appellant may later question
whether the votes of those ultimately declared to be supervisors should be counted.
Whether or not the agreement negotiated by the appellant union with the
employer, during the pendency of the original petition in the Court of Industrial
Relations, should be considered valid and binding on the workers of the Caloocan
shops is a question that should be first passed upon by the Industrial Court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order appealed from is a rmed, with costs
against appellant Mechanical Department Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com