CASE DIGEST: YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES VS CIR

YOUNG MEN LABOR UNION STEVEDORES

VS

CIR

13 SCRA 285

Feb. 26, 1965

FACTS

-Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. (NALCO) entered into a contract with Young Men Labor Union Stevedores (YMLUS) and Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU) whereby the 2 unions bound themselves to undertake loading jobs of NALCO’s exports at 50-50. YMLUS later sent NALCO a letter demanding the withdrawal of the job from VISLU on the ground that its registration permit granted by DOLE had been cancelled; VISLU refused as the order of cancellation had not become final. YMLUS sent a notice of picketing if their demand was not carried out.

-NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying that pending final determination of the issue, the unions observe status quo; and, after due hearing, decide which union gets the job, or comply with the 50-50 arrangement.

-After a series of bloody incidents resulting from the picketing by YMLUS and retaliation from VISLU, NALCO filed a petition with the CIR praying (1) to issue a TRO against YMLUS to refrain from preventing VISLU’s operations in any manner (2) issue a similar TRO to VISLU, ordering them to desist from retaliating (3) after hearing, to issue and order making such injunctions permanent.

-both unions filed separate motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the CIR but later submitted to the CIR’s jurisdiction. Judge Martinez rendered a decision enjoining parties to continue observing the 50-50 arrangement until it is decided by certification election, which party was to become the bargaining unit. YMLUS and NALCO each filed MFRs as to the holding of certification elections which were denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE/S

1. WON CIR had jurisdiction to act on the controversy

2. WON CIR erred in ordering a certification election

HELD

1. YES.

Reasoning Sec. 12b of RA 875 provides that matters pertaining to certification election involving 2 or more unions fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR. Also, petitioner is estopped from questioning the same since it withdrew its MFR and voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction to present evidence.

2. NO.

Reasoning Again, it is sanctioned by Sec. 12(b) of RA 875 and is the only expedient way to resolve the friction between the 2 unions. The object of certification proceedings is not a decision of any alleged commission of a wrong or asserted deprivation of rights but is merely the determination of the proper bargaining unit. As such, said proceedings are investigatory in nature and this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the CIR, unless grave abuse of discretion is shown.

Disposition

Order appealed from is affirmed.