Title
United States Lines Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
Case
G.R. No. L-15459
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1960
A labor union sought certification as the bargaining agent for watchmen in Manila's Port; the Supreme Court affirmed the CIR's decision, limiting representation to Port watchmen.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15459)

Procedural Background

The Union initiated a petition on February 21, 1956, to certify itself as the exclusive bargaining representative for a defined unit of approximately thirty watchmen across the vessels of the Company docked in the Port of Manila. This petition was assigned the docket number Case No. 328-MC. The Court of Industrial Relations later allowed the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency to intervene in proceedings that also included related cases against other maritime companies.

Decision of the Court of Industrial Relations

On December 20, 1956, the Court of Industrial Relations issued a decision favoring the Union's certification request. It ordered the Department of Labor to conduct a certification election for the designated bargaining unit. This provision set the operational framework for the election, detailing which employees were eligible to vote and enumerating procedures to address specific concerns regarding certain employees’ eligibility due to pending issues.

Certification Election and Subsequent Orders

The certification election was conducted on January 2, 1959, resulting in a majority vote for the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency as the representative of the watchmen. On January 23, 1959, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order certifying the Agency as the sole representative for collective bargaining on behalf of all employees of the United States Lines Company. This order was contested by the Company, arguing that the scope was improperly expanded to include all laborers, contrary to the specific pleadings that limited representation to watchmen in the Port of Manila.

Motion for Reconsideration

The Company filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the Court's order exceeded the intended scope of representation. Notably, neither the Agency nor the Union opposed this motion. The Court denied the motion on February 19, 1959, asserting the sufficiency of its prior decision without modification.

Legal Issues and Positions

The legal question at the center of the dispute concerned whether the January 23, 1959, order improperly expanded the bargaining unit beyond the designated group of watchmen. The Company contended that the order had indeed expanded the unit to encompass all laborers of the United States Lines Company, while the Union and the lower court maintained that such an expansion was not intended, a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.