Petitioner Vs Vs Respondents Sisenando Villaluz Gregorio E. Fajardo
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondents Sisenando Villaluz Gregorio E. Fajardo
SYLLABUS
DECISION
REYES, J.B.L. , J : p
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."
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.