Associated Watchmen and Security Union v. Lanting

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Associated Watchmen and Security Union v. Lanting
G.R. No. L-141120
February 29, 1960

Management Rights: Right to Prescribe Rules

Facts:

The Republic Ships Security Agency is one of three agencies, together with K. Tagle Ship Watchmen Agency and the City Watchmen and Security Agency, employed by certain shipping agencies in the City of Manila and respondent Macondray and Company, Inc., in guarding ships or vessels arriving at the port of Manila and discharging cargo on its piers. Thirty-eight affiliates of the Republic Ships Security Agency belong to the petitioner labor union.

Petitioner union and its members declared a strike against 19 shipping firms in the City of Manila. Attempts were made by the Court of Industrial Relations to settle the strike. At the hearing or conference before the court on 16 March 1956, the strikers, through counsel, expressed their desire to return back to work and maintain the status quo.

The manager of respondent Macondray and Company, Inc. expressed willingness to employ the strikers belonging to the petitioner union under the condition that the agency to which they belong file a bond in the sum of P5,000 in favor of Macondray and Company, Inc. to respond for any negligence, misfeasance or malfeasance of any of the watchmen of petitioner

However, the Republic Ships Security Agency, to which most of the members of the petitioner union belonged, failed to comply with the demands of Macondray and Company, Inc. that they furnish such a bond.

Because of the failure of the Republic Ships Security Agency to furnish a bond, Macondray and Company, Inc. refused to employ watchmen from the said agency.

On 15 November 1956, Macondray and Company, Inc. was charged with unfair labor practice for having dismissed and refused to employ 38 members of the petitioner herein.

Respondent contends that they did not demand a bond from the members of the petitioner union but from the Republic Ships Security Agency; that it has not discriminated against members of the petitioner union.

Issue:

Validity of the bond imposed by respondent Macondray and Company, Inc.

Ruling:

The refusal of the respondent to employ guards affiliated with a security or watchmen agency that does not furnish a bond can not constitute an unfair labor practice. Such refusal is merely the exercise of respondent's legitimate right to protect its own interests.

Respondent never had any contract or agreement with the petitioner union; respondent secured security guards through the three watchmen agencies above mentioned, without reference to the unions to which the different guards may have pertained. The members of the petitioner union or of the shipping agencies are not ordinary permanent and continuous employees, but merely casual guards who are employed only when there is a ship to be guarded and during the stay of the ship in the port of Manila.

Ruled in favor of the respondents.

Acknowledgement: Prince Fulgado