DEMOCRATIC LABOR ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER, VS. CEBU STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC. ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The Cebu stevedores Association, a legitimate labor union with Registration
Permit No. 357, filed on March 8, 1954 with the Court of Industrial Relations a
petition for certification election for the purpose of determining the
collective bargaining unit that should represent the employees and laborers of
the Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. The latter was made party respondent as the
employer. In the process, three other labor unions intervened, to wit; the
Democratic Labor Association, the Cebu Trade Union, and the Katubsanan Sa
Mamumuo, who also asserted their right to take part in the certification
election.

As the parties could not agree on the union that should be designated as the
appropriate collective bargaining agency, hearings were held and evidence
adduced not only on what should be the proper bargaining unit but also on the
membership of each labor organization. Thereafter, Judge Jose S. Bautista, who
has been designated to receive the evidence, issued an order declaring the
Democratic labor Association as the collective bargaining agency for all the
regular and permanent workers of respondent company considering that it has more
employees belonging to this class than the other unions. He found that the Cebu
stevedores Association has more casual laborers affiliated with it but that it
is not a union registered under the provisions of the law and so it cannot take
part in the certification election. He also found that the Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo
is no longer interested in the election and that Judging from the attitude of
its president it can be implied that it has waived its claim, in favor of the
Cebu Stevedores Association. Consequently, Judge Bautista ordered that an
election be conducted by the Department of Labor among the casual laborers whose
names appear on pages 1 and 3-24 of Exhibit 4-respondent designating as the only
labor organizations that may be voted in said election the Democratic labor
Association and the Cebu Trade Union, two legitimate labor organizations
registered in accordance with law.

Dissatisfied with this order, respondent Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., as well
as the Cebu Stevedores Association and the Katubsanan sa Mamumuo, filed each a
motion for reconsideration disputing the finding of the trial judge that there
should be two collective bargaining units thafe would represent two sets of
workers based on their terms of employment, as well as the finding that the two
labor unions above-mentioned are ineligible to take part or be voted for in the
certification election. These motions having been submitted to the court en
banc, a split vote resulted, 3 voting in favor of revoking the order and two in
favor of upholding it. In other words, Judge Juan L. Lanting, with Judges
Arsenio I. Martinez and Bienvenido Tan concurring, with the dissent of Judge
Jose S. Bautista, concurred in by Judge Jimenez Yanson, issued a resolution
setting aside the order aforesaid and containing the following dispositive part:
(1) declaring that the appropriate collective bargaining unit is the employer’s
unit, embracing all the employees and workers therein involved; and (2) ordering
the holding of an election wherein the four labor unions should take part,
namely, the Cebu Stevedores Association, Democratic labor Association,
Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo and Cebu Trade Union. Hence the present petition for
review.

The facts as found by the trial court are: The Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. is
a corporation engaged principally in stevedoring work consisting of loading and
unloading of cargoes to and from the foreign ocean-going vessels that dock in
the port of Cebu and, secondarily, in the lighterage business consisting of
hauling and storing copper, gypsum, oil products and other merchandise to and
from the port of Cebu and neighboring islands and provinces. In the operation of
these two kinds of business, the company employs two sets of workers, namely,
the regular and permanent on one hand, and the daily or casual on the other. The
first set of laborers work continuously and are paid either semi-annually,
monthly or weekly, are given annual bonuses, sick leave and vacation leave for every year of service, and are given overtime compensation for overtime work
ranging from 25% to 50%. The casual laborers are the stevedores who work solely
on the loading and unloading of cargoes, are paid daily, are laid off from time
to time, and work as they please depending on the arrival of foreign vessels in
the port of Cebu. They do not enjoy any vacation or sick leave, bat when they
work overtime, they are paid 100% additional compensation. Considering these
factors and following American precedents, the trial court deemed it proper that
two separate bargaining units be certified, namely, one consisting of the
regular and permanent employees ana the other consisting of the casual laborers
or stevedores of the employer.

In this connection, the trial court also found that the Democratic Labor
Association had a majority of the regular and permanent employees among its
members because, of a total of 211 workers of that class, 128 thereof are
affiliated with said union. And so, the trial court deemed it proper to certify
said union as the appropriate bargaining unit for regular and permanent
employees, the trial court also found that the Cebu Stevedores Association has
among its members more casual laborers or stevedores than the other unions but
because it is not registered as required by law, it cannot be certified as the
collective bargaining unit of a aid. class of laborers. The trial court finally
found thet the Katubanan Sa Mamumuo was no longer interested in taking part in
the election because its president and counsel, Jose Muana, made it known that he was giving the claim of that union in favor of the Cebu Stevedores
Association. It is for this reason that the trial court only considered the
Democratic Labor Association and the Cebu Trade Union as the only ones qualified
to take part In the election of the bargaining unit for casual laborers or
stevedores.

Some of these facts however were found by the court en banc to be incorrect
because they are contrary to the evidence. Thus, the evidence is not clear
whether the Democratic Labor Union has among its members more regular and
permanent employees than the other labor unions which doubt, according to the
court en banc, should be resolved in favor of holding a certification election,
“It is not also correct that the Cebu Stevedores Association is not a registered
labor union for the record shows that this union was formally registered under
Commonwealth Act No. 813 but that such registration expired on January 31, 1955.
Later, however, its permit was renewed and Certificate of Registration No.
1477-IP was issued on September 7, 1955. It is therefore a legitimate labor
organization entitled to take part in the certification election. With regard to
the finding that Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo waived its claim in favor of the Cebu
Stevedores Association, the court en banc also found that the same is not borne
out by the evidence and concluded that that union is entitled to take part in
the certification election.

The issue now to be determined is: Considering that there are two sets of
employees or laborers working in respondent company, one regular and permanent
and the other casual or temporary, is it proper and, convenient that there
should be one collective bargaining unit for each, as held by the trial court,
or only one collective bargaining unit for all the workers and employees of said
respondent company regardless of their terms of employment, as held by the court
en banc?

In determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit in the present
case, the court en banc took Into account the fact that as early as March 4,
1947 a collective bargaining agreement was enforced between the petitioning,
union and respondent company and that such agreement was substituted by another
on November 1, 1950, which was renewed for another two years on November 1,
1952. An examination of the contract executed on November 1, 1950 reveals,
according to said court, that it covers “laborers on daily wage, officers and
members of the crew of launches, tugboats, barges, and lighters” or, in short,
all the working force employed in respondent company. There is therefore a
collective bargaining history to reckon with according to which all the
employees of the company have always belonged to only one collective bargaining
unit, and considering that that collective bargaining; agreement has stabilized
or at least has contributed to the stabilization of labor relations between the
company and its employees from 1947 to 1952, no reason is seen why suoh
historical precedent should not control the present case.

While it may be true that a collective bargaining agreement has for sometime
existed between the petitioning union and respondent company and the same has
served the purpose for which it has been concluded, it does not follow that the
same situation should continue even if there are supervening factors that press
for a different treatment or other cogent reasons that would justify a different
course in the determination of the appropriate collections bargaining agency.
While the existence of a bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned
with in determining the appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive
nor conclusive. There are other factors that may be considered depending upon
the circumstances of each case. One of them is the fact that since the
conclusion of said collective bargaining agreement there have arisen several
other labor unions composed of employees and laborers of the same company whose
relations have become so diverse and conflicting that a re-evaluation of the
labor relations has become imperative in order that they may not be jeopardized.
This moment has come when the petitioning union brought the matter to court for certification election and the situation with which the court was confronted
was: there wore four labor unions composed of employees and laborers working in
the same company with diverse and conflicting interest and there was no
collective bargaining agency to represent them. Hence the need for certification
election. And the crucial issue is how to determine the proper collective
bargaining unit and what unit would be appropriate to be the collective
bargaining agency. This is now the crux in the present ease.

This issue is novel in this jurisdiction. No other case has arisen before
involving a similar issue and which may serve as a guide for the determination
of the controversy. However, American precedents on the matter abound and to
them we should resort considering that our present Magna Carta has been
patterned after the American law on the subject. Under these precedents, there
are various factors which must be satisfied and considered in determining the
proper constituency of bargaining unit. No one particular factor is itself
decisive of the determination. The weight accorded to any particular factor
varies in accordance with the particular question or questions that may arise in
a given case. What are these factors? Rothenberg mentions a good number, but the
most pertinent to our case are: (1) will of employees (Globe Doctrine); (2)
affinity and unity of employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of
work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working conditions; (3) prior
collective bargaining history; and (4) employment status, such as temporary,
seasonal and probationary employees (Rothenberg on labor Relations, pp.
488-510). A brief discussion of the nature of each of these factors becomes
necessary.

By reason of the modern complexity of both employer and union structure, it
frequently becomes difficult to determine from the evidence alone which of
several claimant groups form a proper bargaining unit. It then becomes necessary
to give consideration to the express will or desire of the employees. This
practice of considering; the employees’ will has been, designated as the Globe
doctrine. This doctrine arose in a case where there were four contending labor
groups, three claiming to be the proper bargaining units for employees coming
within each of their three separate categories of work, and the fourth claiming
the right to be designated as the bargaining unit for all employees on a
plant-wide basis. The National labor Relations Board, finding that each of the
competing units have an equally valid basis for their respective claims, decided
to hold a series of elections, not for the purpose of allowing the group
receiving an overall majority of votes to represent all employees, but for the
specific purpose of permitting the employees in each of the several categories
of work to select the group which each chose as a bargaining unit (p. 483,
Idem.).

The second factor is perhaps one of the most conclusive in determining the
proper bargaining unit. Inasmuch, as the basic test of a bargaining unit’s
acceptability is whether it will best assure to all employees the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights, industrial experience indicates that the
most efficacious bargaining unit is one which is comprised of constituents
enjoying a community of interest and economic or occupational unity. This
community of interest is reflected in groups having substantial similarity of
work and duties or similarity of compensation and working conditions (pp.
490-494, Idem,),

Another important factor is the precedent history of collective bargaining
between the proposed bargaining unit and the employer. When this precedent
exists, it may be assumed that the court will not disturb the composition of a
consolidated bargaining unit which has an established existence and has, in its
past dealings with the employer, demonstrated its service to the collective
bargaining purposes of the act. However, where the circumstances have been so
altered or where the reciprocal relationship of the employer and the bargaining
unit has been so changed that the past mutual experience in collective
bargaining cannot be reasonably said to establish a reliable guide to the
present constituency of the bargaining unit, then prior collective bargaining
history cannot be considered a factor in the determination. In such an event,
the determination must be made entirely upon the basis of existing facts and
with due consideration to all of the remaining factors (pp. 496-498, Idem.)

The status of employment is another important factor in the determination of
which employees shall be included or excluded from a proposed bargaining unit.
There are certain positions and categories of work which, by their very nature,
place the employees in a position wherein a conflict of duties and interest
exists. There are several categories of employment which have so far received
the special attention of congress, the courts and the board, among them
supervisory employees, confidential employees, guards and plant policemen and
temporary, seasonal and probationary employees. With respect to suck employees,
there frequently arises the question of the right to include or exclude them
from bargaining units composed of permanent employees. It was hold that employees
hired on a brief, casual or day to day basis or for a short, definite term, and
who have no reasonable basis for continued or renewed employment for any
appreciable substantial time, are considered to have no such mutuality of
interest with permanent employees as to justify their interest in a bargaining
unit composed of such permanent employees (pp. 500- 511, Idem.).

An enlightening appraisal of the problem of defining an appropriate
bargaining unit is given in the 10th Annual Report of the National labor
Relations Board wherein it is emphasized that the factors which said board may
consider and weigh in fixing appropriate units are: tho history, extent and type
of organization of employees; the history of their collective bargaining; the
history, extent and type of organization of employees in other plants of the
same employer, or other employers in the same industry; the skill, wages, work,
and working conditions of the employees; the desires of the employees; the
eligibility of the employees for membership in the union or unions involved; and
the relationship between the unit or units proposed and the employer’s
organization, management, and operation. In said report, it is likewise
emphasized that the basic test in determining the appropriate bargaining unit is
that a unit, to be appropriate, must effect a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other
subjects of collective bargaining (Smith, Labor Law, 316-317 ;Francisco, labor
Laws, 162).

We have therefore seen that the mere existence of a prior collective
bargaining history is not a decisive factor in the determination of a collective
bargaining agency. Where the circumstances had been so altered or where the
reciprocal relationship of the employer and the particular bargaining unit has
been so changed that the past mutual experience cannot be considered as a
reliable guide to the present determination of the bargaining unit, then prior
collective bargaining history should be brushed aside and only the prevailing
facts and factors should control the determination. We have also seen that an
important factor to consider is the employment status of the workers and
employees to be affected by the collective bargaining agency. The positions or
categories of work to which they belong should also be considered. This rule
requires that temporary, seasonal or probational employees be grouped as one
category and be treated separately from permanent employees. The test of the
grouping is community or mutuality of interest. And this is so because “the
basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it
is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the
exercise of their collective bargaining rights” (Rothenberg on Labor Relations,
490).

We therefore find that the conclusion reached by the trial court to the
effect that two separate bargaining units should be formed in dealing with the
respondent company, namely, one consisting of regular and permanent employees,
and the other consisting of casual laborers or stevedores, is correct, it being
supported by precedents on the matter. We also find correct the finding that the
Democratic Labor Association, having among its members more regular and
permanent employees, should be designated as the collective bargaining unit for
this group. Certain facts, however, found by the trial court should be
corrected: The Cebu Stevedores Association is now a legitimate labor union, its
permit having been renewed and should be allowed to take part in the
certification election for the group of casual or temporary employees. The
Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo has not waived its right to take part in the election and
it must be allowed to take part therein, and with the facts thus modified, the
ruling of the trial court should be upheld.

Wherefore, the decision of the industrial court en banc dated November 7,
1955 is hereby modified as follows: (1) the Democratic labor Association is
hereby declared as the collective bargaining agent for the regular and permanent
employees and workers of respondent company; and (2) let certification election
be held for casual or temporary employees and workers in which the following
organizations should participate: Cebu Stevedores Association, Democratic Labor
Association, Katubsanan Sa Mamumuo and Cebu Trade Union. No pronouncement as to
costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,
concur.