Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-2 211 217 Case Title / Issue Allied Free Workers vs Compania Maritima (1967) (WON there is an Er-Ee relationship between MARITIMA, on the one hand, and AFWU and/or its memberslaborers) Facts Maritima entered into an Arrastre and Stevedoring Contract with AFWU. Initially, good relationship and the contract was renewed. The relationship turned sour due to unsatisfactory and inefficient service. The manager (Teves) was forced to hire extra laborers from among "stand-by" workers not affiliated to any union AFWU instituted proceedings to be the sole and exclusive bargaining agent - Maritima: lack of Er-Ee relationship Maritima terminated the contract due to inefficient service, contracted with Iligan Stevedoring Union - AFWU charged Maritima of unfair labor practices - Maritima: lack of Er-Ee relationship AFWU, with sister union, staged a picket line for 9 days Maritima filed action to rescind the contract AFWU filed counterbond, AFWU laborers continued work CFI decision: rescission of contract, Maritima engaged services of Mindanao Arrestre Service Continued actions-counter actions, on-and-off work for AFWU laborers After 10 years, Industrial Courts decision: dismissed the case for lack of substantial evidence and merit, Court requested Labor Sec to hold a certification election Ruling/Ratio On unfair labor practice, Rule: (1) the duty to bargain collectively arises only between then "employer" and its "employees". Implication: Where neither party is an "Er" nor an "Ee" of the other, no such duty would exist. - Case facts: (1) The petitioner union operated as a labor contractor under the "cabo" system; (2) all appointed by the GM of the union and are paid in accordance with the union payroll exclusively prepared by the union; (3) AFWU had an organized body with position nomenclatures, all paid according to the payroll prepared by the union itself without Maritimas intervention, Maritima doesnt even know their names; (4) The union engaged the services of their members . The charges for such service were known by the union and collected by them through their bill collector, evidence: "conduci" or delivery receipts; (5) Once goods are delivered to their destination the union through its bill collectors prepare the bills of collection and the charges are collected by the union bill collectors who are Union Ees; (6) union employs their own trucks or other vehicles or conveyance from shipper's warehouse to the boat or vice-versa, Maritima has no trucks; (7) supervision done by Unions general foreman or capataz, instructions do not come from Maritima; (8) union exercises disciplinary measures, e.g., imposed fines, termination of employment. - Conclusion: No unfair labor practice by Maritima, no Er-Ee relationship b/n laborers and Maritima. The Union is an independent contractor. Ratio: There is no legal impediment for a union to be an "employer". Still on the charge of unfair labor practice: - Termination of contract is discriminatory: SC held that there is sufficient evidence that inefficiency is the cause, Maritima was not involved in any way in organizing the replacement union (i.e., Iligan Stevedoring Union) - Right of Maritima to terminate employment is contrary to law, morals, public order & public policy: SC held that AFWU made no such averment - Action to terminate the contract is an interference with union activities: SC held that there is no showing of such. Case fact: After the termination of the contract, AFWU laborers continued to work with Maritima under the cabo system. - Allegation: Er-Ee relationship arose - Conclusion: still no Er-Ee relationship - Characteristics of the cabo system: (1) the union was an independent contractor, its members were its laborers; (2) the charges were made directly by the union; and (3) the laborers were paid on union payrolls and MARITIMA had nothing to do with the preparation of the same. - Laborers were allowed to work pursuant to a court

Art.

Case Title / Issue

Facts

Ruling/Ratio order, implication: No Er-Ee relationship arose. On the Q: WON a certification election should be sustained - Rule: the duty to bargain collectively arises only between then "employer" and its "employees" - Case fact: No Er-Ee relationship - Implication: No duty to bargain collectively; No reason to select a representative to bargain - Conclusion: proposition should not be sustained. Obiter: Cabo system is bad for the Ees but the end does not justify the means.