Search
Home
Saved
186 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
United Seamen's vs. Davao Shipowners
Uploaded by John Michael Vida
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
Case digest of United Seamen's vs. Davao Shipowners. Doctrines covered under Labor Relations Law.
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
News
Documents
of 2
Labor Rd8 Compiled
MALAYANG Land Titles and SAMAHAN NG MGA Deeds
Search document
United Seamen’s Union v. Union v. Davao Shipowner’s Association Sheet Music
G.R. No. L-18778 and L-18779 August 31, 1967 J. Makalinta petitioners United Seamen's Union of the Philippines (USUP) respondents Davao Shipowners Association (DSA), Angtiong Sons and/or Ricardo Ang, owne Angliongto Sons and Company, Garcia Water Transportation, Court Of Industria
facts of the case
On August 4, 1959, USUP presented a set of demand to DSA, representing the respondent shipping compan recognition, union security, standardization of wages and other benefits. In response, the ship owners br attention of the USUP the existence of a CBA with the Davao Marine Association (DMA), where all of the their launches belonged. They suggested to the USUP that they first take the necessary steps for certifi collective bargaining agent, as the ship owners were bound by the CBA until 1959. However, even before ship owner’s response to its demands, the USUP had filed a Notice of Strike against the individual ship o Department of Labor Davao Office.
The Chief of the Labor Operations Section of the Davao Office requested for a conference to solve the conflic 20, 1959, both parties reached a covenant stating the withdrawal of the Notice of Strike, as well as the obser status quo regarding the jobs incident to the businesses of the DSA and the withdrawal of the civil case against the USUP. It was also stipulated in the contract that the USUP will respect the existing CBA betwe DMA, but USUP will file a petition for certification election for determination of union representation.
As stipulated, the USUP filed with the CIR a petition for certification election. Subsequent to the covenant, companies separately served notices of termination upon 64 employees, effecting December 31, 1959, due reasons (from stoppage of operations to the death of one of the partners of the shipping companies due losses). As a result, USUP reported the terminations to the Department of Labor, which called for a Nevertheless, Nevertheless, on December 29, 1959, the USUP notified the Philippine Constabulary, City Mayor, Bureau of the general public of a strike on January 1, 1960.
On February 11, 1960, the shipping companies filed a petition for writ of injunction, as a necessity due t damage to properties due to “coercion, violence and illegal picketing”. On the other hand, on February USUP filed a ULP case against the ship owners and DSA, alleging that the ship owners interfered, and interfere with their right to self-organization by discrimination against employees. CIR however sided w dismissing the USUP’s ULP case while declaring the strike as illegal. Sign up to vote on this title
Useful Not useful WON CIR gravely abused its discretion by declaring the strike as illegal. NO, strike was declared illegal an by the Supreme Court.
issue
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
186 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
United Seamen's vs. Davao Shipowners
Uploaded by John Michael Vida
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
Case digest of United Seamen's vs. Davao Shipowners. Doctrines covered under Labor Relations Law.
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
News
Documents
Sheet Music
1
of 2
Labor Rd8 Compiled
MALAYANG Land Titles and SAMAHAN NG MGA Deeds
Search document
It could not also be said that the DSA violated the covenant of August 20, 1959, as it was stated that the DS party thereto. Even assuming that the shipping companies were bound by the covenant, the termination of th was not considered to be a violation of the covenant, as the dismissals were predicated on legitimate reasons.
Third, the existence of the CBA should have deterred USUP from acts tending to force its recognition as employees concerned were bound by the CBA between DMA and the ship owners, but instead of going procedure as stated in their CBA for grievance machinery.
Fourth, it was stated by the Court that, even granting that the purpose of the strike was valid, the fact still r the means employed by the employees on strike were far from legitimate, as shown by the fact that the USUP violence and coercion. IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION:
A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promoting the interests of labor without disputes. That is why it is given personality and recognition in concluding collective bargaining agreements.
But if it is made use of as a subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it defeats its own purpose, undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor. The situation does not deserve any approving san Court.
You're Reading a Preview Unlock full access with a free trial.
Download With Free Trial
Sign up to vote on this title
Useful
Not useful
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
