American President Lines v Clave

American President Lines v. Hon. Jacobo Clave (Pres. Exec. Assistant Office of the Pres.), NLC, !inistr" of Labor, !aritime #ec$rit" %nion, &ndiv. Com'lainnats headed b" J$lian Advinc$la and #heriff Leon Navea J$ne *, +** -arredo, J. acts ♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

Company went into a contract with Marine Security Agency to guard their vessels in the port. Contract was for 1 year and may only be terminated by either party upon 30 days notice. The arrangement was that Marine Security  Agency would hire hire and assign the guards guards lump sum given to to agency who in turn turn determined the compensation compensation of  the individual watchmen. Contract was terminated and they e!ecuted a new contract with the "hil. Scout #eterans Security and $nvestigation Agency. %nion abolished themselves due to termination of contract inability of Agency to provide employment and inability of members and %nion to provide maintenance. &espondents claim that that the termination of the contract was 'primarily because of misunderstanding that had intervened intervene d between the A"( represented represen ted by your Capt. Morris and Mr. A. Tinsay Tinsay operator of said watchmen)s agency* agency* and that 'the operator of the Marine Security Agency then allegedly threatened to cause trouble to the  A"( and particularly particularly to Capt. Capt. Morris.* %nion %nion soon passed reso reviving reviving itself. $ndividual complainants headed by +ulian Advincula Advincula filed %(" against petitioner company. Their Their complaint wherein they charged that the petitioner had refused to negotiate an agreement with them and had d iscriminated against them with regard to their tenure of employment by dismissing them on +anuary 1 1,-1 for no other reason than their membership with the union and union activities was lodged with the defunct Court of $ndustrial &elations. ut case transferred to /(&C due to legislation (A found for complainants reinstatementbac2wages reinstatementbac2wages /(&C Minister of (abor and ffice of "res. Affirmed. Affirmed.

&##%E/ 4/ there e!isted an employer5employee relationship between the petitioner and the individual watchmen of the Marine Security Agency Agency who are alleged to be members of the respondent union6 HEL0/ /. HEL0/ /. Complaint for %(" dismissed.

To determine the e!istence of 7&577 rel 819 selection and en gagement of the 77 8:9 pa yment of wages 839 power of dismissal 8;9 power to control the 77s conduct 8most important element9 The Court fails to see h ow the complaining watchmen of the Marine Security Agency can be considered as employees of the petitioner. $t is the agency that recruits hires and assigns the wor2 of its watchmen. ? Sec. 13 a %(" may committed only within the conte!t of the 7757& relationship n the %(" issue desire to negotiate agreement must be e!pressed through a written notice 8no showing in this case9 no evidence that termination was due to alleged union activities The most telling evidence of the shallowness of private respondents) charge of unfair labor practice is the respondent union)s own resolution to abolish itself. $f respondent union felt aggrieved by the unfair labor practice it had imputed to the petitioner petitioner why did it abolish itself6 $nstead of putting an end to its own e!istence why did it not prosecute its charge with dispatch considering that an unfair labor practice by an employer is an affront against the very integrity and e!istence of a union6 4hat is worse is that in its resolution of abolition the respondent union confessed that it is the Marine Security Agency Agency that provided employment to its members. To ur minds minds there can b e no clearer proof that such an admission that it is indeed the agency not the petitioner that is the employer of its watchmen.