Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24134-35)
Facts:
The case involves The Bradman Company, Inc. as the petitioner and the Court of Industrial Relations along with the Manila Bay Watchmen Association as respondents. The events leading to this case began when the Manila Bay Watchmen Association, representing the watchmen employed by The Bradman Company, sent a letter on May 7, 1950, containing eleven sets of labor proposals for collective bargaining. The company, however, did not respond to these proposals, as confirmed by Florendo M. Padilla, the shipping manager of the company, who stated that he did not make any written reply as per the recommendation of the company president, Mr. Bradley. Following the certification of the union as the sole bargaining agent on November 18, 1960, the union reiterated its demands in a letter dated December 29, 1960, warning that failure to act would compel them to take measures to protect their rights. Despite knowing that the watchmen were union members, the company continued to ignore the un...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24134-35)
Facts:
Union Proposals and Refusal to Bargain:
- The Manila Bay Watchmen Association (private respondent) sent a letter to The Bradman Company, Inc. (petitioner) on May 7, 1950, containing 11 sets of labor proposals for collective bargaining.
- The company refused to act on the union's proposals, as testified by Florendo M. Padilla, the shipping manager, who stated that no written reply was made based on the recommendation of the company president.
- On November 18, 1960, the union was certified by the Court as the sole bargaining agent for the watchmen. On December 29, 1960, the union reiterated its labor demands, warning the company of potential measures if no action was taken.
- Despite knowing the union's certification and the membership of its workers in the union, the company continued to disregard the union's requests and bargaining proposals.
Reinstatement of Workers:
- On January 2, 1961, the company's vessel "Eurymedon" was in the Port of Manila. Union members reported for work but were stopped by the company manager, Mr. Manzano, who informed them that they had been replaced by another agency due to the pending case in court.
- The testimonies of the union members regarding their refusal to board the vessel and subsequent denial of employment were never refuted by the company.
- The Court found that the discharge of 59 workers was due to their union affiliation and activities, including requesting union recognition and better employment terms.
Issue:
- Whether the petitioner committed unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the union.
- Whether the reinstatement of the 59 workers ordered by the Court of Industrial Relations was valid.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)