Topic: Unit Severance and Globe Doctrine

Mechanical Department Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways v Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Caloocan
Shops
24 SCRA 925 (1968)
Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Facts:
There were three (3) union in the Caloocan shops of the Philippine National Railways (PNR): the Samahan, the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad
Company, and the Mechanical Department Labor Union. A petition was filed by Samahan calling attention to the fact that no certification election had been held in the
last 12 months in the Caloocan shops and that both the Samahan and Mechanical Dept Labor Union had submitted different labor demands to management for which
reason a CE was needed to determine the proper bargaining agent for the Caloocan shop workers.
The petition was opposed by management as well as the Mechanical Department Labor Union, the latter averring that it had been previously certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees and laborer of the PNRs mechanical department and it had negotiated two CBAs with management in 1961 and 1963 and
that a renewal of the CBA had been re-negotiated and is yet to be signed. It also averred that the Caloocan shops unit was not established nor separated from the
Mechanical Department unit.
The CIR, however, found that the Caloocan shops are separate and distinct from the rest of the workers under the Mechanical Department unit represented by the
Mechanical Department Labor Union. It ordered the holding of a plebiscite election to determine whether the employees at the Caloocan shops desire the respondent
union Samahan, to be separated from the Mechanical Department Labor Union and be recognized as a separate bargaining unit.
Issue:
Whether the holding of a plebiscite election be allowed to determine the desire of the workers of the Caloocan shops to have a separate bargaining unit
Ruling:
YES. Under the Globe doctrine (Globe Machine & Stamping Co., applied in Domestic Labor Union v Cebu Stevedoring Co.), 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 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 may be adverse to the
formation of a separate unit, in which event, all questions raised in the appealed case would be rendered moot and academic.
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 PNR. This question is primarily one of fact. The CIR 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 while 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 sufficient to set them apart from the rest of the workers in the Mechanical Department.
In addition, the record shows that the CBA negotiated by the petitioner have been in existence for more than two (2) years, hence, such agreements cannot constitute a
bar to the determination, by proper elections, of a new bargaining representative.