KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

VS.

YARD CREW UNION, STATION EMPLOYEES UNION, RAILROAD ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT UNION, MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS

FACTS:

Kapisanan filed a petition for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent in the Manila
Railroad Company. The Court found the 3 unions appropriate or purposes of CBA: Unit of
locomotive drivers, firemen, assistant firemen, and motormen-otherwise known as the engine
crew unit, Unit of conductors, assistant conductors, unit agents, assistant route agents and
train posters, or the crew unitAll of the rest of the company except the supervisors, temporary
employees. The following units were certified to be exclusive bargaining agents: Union de
maquinista, fogoneros, ayudantes y motormen, Union de empleados de trenes, Kapisanan.

The Yard crew union filed that it be a separate unit. Kapisanan opposed as there have been
duly certified agents, that the court has denied similar petitions and that the unions are barred
for petitioning separate units as they are bound by the previous decision of the Court, however
ordered a plebiscite in the 3 groups, saying that the CBA did not bar the certification election as
one of the signees was a supervisor

ISSUE: Whether or not there should be a plebiscite?

HELD:

Yes. It is manifest therefore that the desires of the employees or the “Globe Doctrine” is one of
the factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. The votes of workers one way or
the other will not choose the agent or unit which will represent them