Geography, location of a bargaining unit
Geography and location only play a significant role regarding a bargaining unit
in the following circumstances:
[1] The separation between the camps and the different kinds of work in each all militate in favor of the system of separate bargaining units; and
[2] When the problems and interests of the workers are peculiar in each camp or department;
[3] The system of having one collective bargaining unit in each camp has
operated satisfactorily in the past. (Benguet Consolidated Inc. and Balatok
Mining Co. v. Bobok Lumberjack Association; G.R. No. L-11029)
[1] The separation between the camps and the different kinds of work in each all militate in favor of the system of separate bargaining units; and
[2] When the problems and interests of the workers are peculiar in each camp or department;
[3] The system of having one collective bargaining unit in each camp has
operated satisfactorily in the past. (Benguet Consolidated Inc. and Balatok
Mining Co. v. Bobok Lumberjack Association; G.R. No. L-11029)
In concluding that the system of having one collective bargain unit for each
camp (as decided in 1953 in cases Nos. 3-MC and 9-MC) should be maintained
and continued, the industrial court found as follows: that such system had
operated satisfactorily; that the prime and decisive element in determining
whether a given group of employees constitutes a proper bargaining unit is
whether it will, without inequity to the employer, best serve all employees
in the exercise of their bargaining rights; that in the present case,the
separation between the camps (which extends to 60 kms. between the Antamok
and Acupan camps) and the different kind of work in each (except Acupan and
Antamok) all militate in favor of the present system of separate bargaining
units, since the problems and interest of the workers are peculiar in each
camp or department.
The court also found that "As the union officials will undoubtedly come from
each unit, they will be in a much better position to know what is best for
their members than those who would come from other units, if the employer
unit were to be held appropriate." The findings and reasoning of the Court
of Industrial Relation appear cogent and warrant the conclusion it has
arrived at. There is no ground for altering a system that takes into account
the different nature of the work in the various camps, as well as the
necessity of the laborers' representatives being familiar with the peculiar
problems of each camp, specially since such a system has hitherto worked
satisfactorily.
