Kapisanan v. Yard Crew Union
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three separate petitions were filed in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) by the Yard Crew Union, Station Employees' Union, and Railroad Engineering Department Union, seeking to be defined as separate bargaining units and certified as exclusive bargaining agents. The Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Company (Kapisanan) intervened. These petitions were treated jointly as they involved identical questions. Procedural History: In a prior decision (Case No. 237-MC), the CIR certified three unions as exclusive bargaining agents for specific units: the engine crew unit, the train crew unit, and the unit for the rest of the company personnel (represented by Kapisanan). After this decision became final, the three unions filed petitions to be separated into distinct units. Kapisanan and the Manila Railroad Company (Company) opposed these petitions, citing the contract bar rule, prior dismissals of similar petitions, and the fact that the unions were bound by the previous decision. The Petition: The CIR, in an order dated June 8, 1959, ordered a plebiscite among employees in the proposed groups to determine their desire to be separated from the unit represented by Kapisanan. The CIR also declared that the collective bargaining agreement could not be a bar to a certification election because its signatory, Kapisanan President Vicente K. Olazo, was previously adjudged a supervisor. A motion for reconsideration was denied, and Kapisanan and the Company filed petitions for certiorari. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the orders were interlocutory.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders directing a plebiscite are interlocutory and thus not appealable. Whether a collective bargaining agreement bars certification proceedings when one of its signatories was previously adjudged a supervisor. Whether the CIR's order granting employees the choice to separate from a certified unit during an existing bargaining contract is contrary to law.
Ruling
The petitions for review by certiorari are dismissed. The orders directing a plebiscite are interlocutory and not subject to appeal. The issue of whether the collective bargaining agreement bars certification proceedings is premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On the interlocutory nature of the orders: The Court held that the orders directing a plebiscite were interlocutory because they left something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. The orders did not decide the petitions for certification election but were part of the CIR's fact-finding investigation to determine the employees' desires. The Court cited the "Globe doctrine" which sanctions the holding of elections to allow employees to select their bargaining unit, emphasizing that the "desires of the employees" is a crucial factor. Therefore, the appeals were not authorized by law and should be dismissed. On the contract bar rule and the supervisor signatory: The Court found the consideration of whether the collective bargaining agreement was a bar to certification proceedings to be premature. It noted that the CIR had not yet decided this issue, and it could only be properly determined after the results of the plebiscite were known. The Court acknowledged the contention that the agreement might not be a bar because Vicente K. Olazo, a signatory for Kapisanan, was previously adjudged a supervisor, but deferred ruling on this matter. On the legality of allowing separation during a contract: The Court did not directly rule on whether the CIR's order was contrary to law, as it dismissed the appeals on the ground that the orders were interlocutory. However, by upholding the CIR's right to conduct a plebiscite to ascertain employee desires, the Court implicitly affirmed the CIR's investigative powers in determining appropriate bargaining units, even in the presence of an existing contract, when such investigation is part of the fact-finding process.
Main Doctrine
Orders directing a plebiscite as part of fact-finding investigation to determine the employees' desires for separation from a certified unit are interlocutory and not subject to appeal. The desires of employees are a factor in determining appropriate bargaining units under the Globe doctrine.