GLOBE DOCTRINE

"The desires of the employees" is one of the factors in determining the appropriate bargaining unit. This is called the
"Globe doctrine."

In the case of Democratic Labor vs. Cebu Stevedoring (G.R. No. L-10321, 1958), the Supreme Court said that, due to the
modern complexity of the relation between both employer and the union structure, it becomes difficult to determine from
evidence alone which of the several claimant groups forms a proper bargaining unit. It becomes necessary to give
consideration to the express will or desire of the employees. This practice is called the "Globe doctrine" which sanctions
the holding of a series of elections, not for the purpose of allowing the group receiving an over all majority of votes to
represent all employees, but for the specific purpose of permitting the employees in each of the several categories to select
the group which each chooses as a bargaining unit.

The factors which may be considered and weighed in fixing appropriate units are: the history, extent and type of
organization of employees; the history of their collective bargaining; the history, extent and type of organization of
employees in other plants of the same employer, or other employers in the same industry; the skill, wages, work and
working conditions of the employees; the desires of the employees; the eligibility of the employees for membership
in the union or unions involved; and, the relationship between the unit or units proposed and the employer's organization,
management and operation.

The test in determining the appropriate bargaining unit is that a unit must effect a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining. (G.R. No. L-
16292. 109 Phil. 1143)

The reason behind the Globe doctrine is that employees with skills different from others or those in unique situations may
form their own bargaining unit because they may gain more bargaining power against the employer if they do so. The
University of the Philippines Bar Reviewer (2016) in labor law gave the following explanation. "Highly skilled or
specialized technical workers may choose to form their own bargaining unit because they may be in better position to
bargain with the employer considering the market value of their skills."

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE), petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A.

FACTS:
Private respondent International School, Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732, is a domestic educational institution
established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The decree
authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from
Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending
their employment, except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. School hires both foreign
and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25%
more than local-hires.

When negotiations for a new CBA were held on June 1995, petitioner ISAE, a legitimate labor union and the collective
bargaining representative of all faculty members of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and
local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining
unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.

ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the failure to reach a compromise in the NCMB, the matter reached the DOLE which
favored the School. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of local- hires.
RULING:
NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.”
These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace – the factory, the office or the field – but include as well the
manner by which employers treat their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.

The Constitution enjoins the State to “protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, In Section 18, Article II of
the constitution mandates “to afford labor full protection”. The State has the right and duty to regulate the relations
between labor and capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor
contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good.

However, foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as the local-hires.

A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties
of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.

The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2)
affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4)
similarity of employment status. The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights.

In the case at bar, it does not appear that foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-
hires for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining history in the School also shows that these groups
were always treated separately. Foreign-hires have limited tenure; local-hires enjoy security of tenure. Although foreign-
hires perform similar functions under the same working conditions as the local-hires, foreign-hires are accorded certain
benefits not granted to local-hires such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave travel allowances.
These benefits are reasonably related to their status as foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of the former from the latter.
To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective
collective bargaining rights.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA

FACTS
A certification election was conducted among the rank-and-file employees of Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion
Hotel between contending unions, National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries - Manila
Pavilion Hotel Chapter (NUWHRAIN-MPHC) and Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union (HIMPHLU).
The results showed that of the 346 total of votes cast, NUWHRAIN-MPHC received 151 and HIMPHLU garnered
169 votes.
In view of the significant number of segregated votes, contending unions, referred the case back to Med-
Arbiter to decide which among those votes would be opened and tallied. The Med-Arbiter ruled for the opening of 17
out of the 22 segregated votes – those cast by the 11 dismissed employees and those cast by the six supposedly
supervisory employees of the Hotel.
NUWHRAIN-MPHC appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE), arguing that the votes of
the probationary employees should have been opened considering that the vote of Jose Gatbonton, a probationary
employee, was tallied. Petitioner also averred that respondent HIMPHLU, which garnered 169 votes, should not be
immediately certified as the bargaining agent, as the opening of the 17 segregated ballots would push the number of
valid votes cast to 338 (151 + 169 + 1 + 17), hence, the 169 votes which HIMPHLU garnered would be one vote short
of the majority which would then become 169.
SOLE affirmed the Med-Arbiter’s decision holding that the probationary employees cannot vote, as at the
time the Med-Arbiter issued the order granting the petition for the conduct of the certification election, the
six probationary employees were not yet hired, hence, they could not vote. Respecting Gatbonton's vote, the records show
that during the pre-election conferences, there was no disagreement as to his inclusion in the voters' list, and neither
was it timely challenged when he voted on election day, hence, the Election Officer could not then segregate his vote.
Furthermore, the votes cast by the 11 dismissed employees could be considered since their dismissal was still pending
appeal. As to the votes cast by the six alleged supervisory employees, the SOLE held that their votes should be
counted since their promotion took effect months after the issuance of the order of the Med-Arbiter, hence, they were
still considered as rank-and-file. The SOLE concluded that the certification of HIMPHLU as the exclusive bargaining
agent was proper.
The Court of Appeals affirmed said decision. The CA held that in a certification election, probationary
employees are entitled to vote if they were already employed as of the date of filing of the petition for certification
election.
ISSUE
Whether or not employees on probationary status at the time of the certification elections should be allowed to
vote in said election.
RULING
Yes. The inclusion of Gatbonton's vote was proper not because it was not questioned but because probationary
employees have the right to vote in a certification election. The votes of the six other probationary employees should
thus also have been counted.
In a certification election, all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary
or permanent are entitled to vote. This principle is clearly stated in Art. 255 of the Labor Code which states that the
"labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining."

Patricia Halaguena, et al. vs PAL

FACTS:
In 2001, FASAP and PAL entered into a CBA covering the year 2001-2005. In the said CBA, the compulsory retirement for
men is 60 while for women is 55.

In 2004, several female crew filed a special civil action for declaratory relief with Prayer for Issuance of TRO and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.

The RTC issued a preliminary injunction enjoining PAL-FASAP from further implementing Sec 144 A of the FASAP-PAL
CBA.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and the latter ruled that RTC of Makati has no Jurisdiction since it is
labor dispute.

Petitioners submit that it is constitional in nature and thus cognizable by the RTC.

ISSUE:
WON RTC has jurisdiction
WON case is a labor dispute

RULING:
Petition is meritorius.

The Court ruled that the case cannot be solved by the labor code alone.

Case at bar is an application of general civil law, and thus falls beyond the competence of labor arbiters.

Though CBA is a contract that governs the parties, the provisions are not absolute. They must not be contrary to law and
public policy.
On the issue of whether sec 144 A of the CBA is discriminatory, the Court is not a trier of facts. To ascertain whether such
provisions are constitutional, a full-blown trial is necessary, thus, the case shall be remanded to the RTC for proper
determination.