Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14689)
Background of the Case
The proceedings began with the issuance of an order by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on February 28, 1955, which mandated a certification election to determine the representative union for the unlicensed crew of the Shipping Line. This election took place in 1955, and GMSU and USUP were deemed eligible. Ultimately, the CIR certified USUP as the exclusive bargaining representative after the election. A two-year collective bargaining agreement was signed on June 28, 1957, between USUP and the Shipping Line, which continued until July 20, 1959, unless terminated by the parties.
GMSU's Petition and Response
On April 30, 1958, GMSU filed a petition for a new certification election, citing a membership of 10% among the unlicensed crew. The Shipping Line maintained neutrality but indicated it would adhere to the existing collective bargaining agreement. In response, USUP filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the existing agreement precluded a new election since it was still in effect until July 20, 1959.
Circuit Court of Industrial Relations' Decision
The CIR granted USUP's motion to dismiss the GMSU's petition based on the "contract-bar rule." This rule stipulates that an existing collective bargaining agreement valid for a reasonable duration can preclude certification elections. The CIR justified its ruling by citing the stability of industrial relations and the need for a defined period of representation through existing agreements.
Legal Framework and Implications
GMSU contended that under Republic Act No. 875, once a petition signed by at least 10% of the workforce is presented, the CIR is mandated to order a certification election provided there has been no election within the past twelve months. GMSU expressed concerns that without an election, the renewal of the collective bargaining agreement could lead to further delays in representation rights.
Discussion of the Contract-Bar Policy
The "contract-bar policy" addresses conflicts between the right of employees to select their representation and the right of employers to honor existing contracts. The CIR must balance these interests while also considering the period and conditions of the existing agreement. The policy is intended to promote stability, but it does not e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14689)
Case Information
- Citation: 108 Phil. 1112
- G.R. No.: L-14689
- Date: July 26, 1960
- Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: General Maritime Stevedores' Union of the Philippines (GMSU) and Co-Petitioners
- Respondents: South Sea Shipping Line and Others
Background of the Case
- The case arose from a petition for certiorari seeking to review an order from the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dated September 23, 1958, which dismissed the GMSU's petition for a certification election.
- The GMSU aimed to set aside this dismissal and have its petition for a certification election heard.
Proceedings and Previous Orders
- On October 23, 1953, the United Seamen's Union of the Philippines (USUP) petitioned the CIR, leading to an order on February 28, 1955, for a certification election among unlicensed crew members of South Sea Shipping Lines.
- GMSU and USUP were both deemed eligible for representation.
- A certification election occurred on April 15 and June 10, 1955, resulting in USUP being certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.
Collective Bargaining Agreement
- A collective bargaining agreement was executed on June 28, 1957, between USUP and the Shipping Line, effective for two years until July 20, 1959, unless terminated by written notice 60 days prior to expiration.
- GMSU contended that this agreement was merely a renewal of a previous contract from 1955, which the Shipping Line acknowledged in its response.
GMSU's Petition for Certification Election
- On April 30, 1958, GMSU filed a petition for a certification election, asserting that it represented at least 10% of the unlicensed crew and that no election had occurred in the preceding twelve months.
- The Shipping Line expressed neutrality but claimed the existing collective bargaining agreement was binding.
Opposition from USUP
- USUP int