1. Kapisanan ng mga manggagawa sa manila railroad company vs.

yard crew union, station

employees union, railroad engineering department union, manila railroad company, and court of
industrial relations
Facts
Kapisanan filed a petition for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the Manila
Railroad Company
The Court found the 3 unions appropriate or purposes of CBA:
o Unit of locomotive drivers, firemen, assistant firemen, and motormen-otherwise known as
the engine crew unit
o Unit of conductors, assistant conductors, unit agents, assistant route agents and train
posters, or the crew unit
o All of the rest o the company except the supervisors, temporary employees
The following units were certified to be exclusive bargaining agents:
o Union de maquinista, fogoneros, ayudantes y motormen
o Union de empleados de trenes
o Kapisanan
Yard crew union filed that it be a separate unit
Kapisanan opposed as there have been duly certified agents, that the court has denied similar
petitions and that the unions are barred for petitioning separate units as they are bound by the
previous decision
Court, however ordered a plebiscite in the 3 groups, saying that the CBA did not bar the
certification election as one of the signees was a supervisor
ISSUE: WON there should be a plebiscite?
HELD:
Yes. It is manifest therefore that the desires of the employees or the Globe Doctrine is one of
the factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit.
The votes of workers one way or the other will not choose the agent or unit which will represent
them