MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT LABOR UNION SA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAWA SA CALOOCAN SHOPS, RESPONDENTS.

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
certification 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 certification 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 certified 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 separate from the
Mechanical Department unit; that the “Samahan”
is composed mainly of supervisors who had filed 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 findings: 
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 Classifi­cation and Evaluation Plan of the company 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 cer­tification
by this Court of the Mechanical Department Labor union,
first in 1960 and later in 1963. 
Subsequently, when the latter
contract expired, negotiations for its renewal were had and at the time of the filing of
this petition was already consummated,
the only act remaining to be done was to affix 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 Manggagawa 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 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 first 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 findings
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., G.R. No. L-10321, 28 February 1958, Judge Martinez held that the employees in the Caloocan
Shops be given a chance to vote on whether their group should be
separated from that represented by the Mechanical Department Labor Union, and
ordered 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 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 take it for granted that the
plebiscite would favor separation.

We find 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 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 sufficient 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 final 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 affirmed, 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.