LABREV - LABREL 2014

8/12/2019 LABREV - LABREL 2014

1/18

Cirtek employees vs Cirtek

FACTS:

In 2005, a CBA dispute arose between Cirtek Electronics and Cirtek Employees Labor Union

(CELU ! "#e dispute re$ol$ed around t#e pro$isions on t#e yearly wa%e increase! A deadlockensued as well as a strike! "#e &ecretary o' Labor took o$er t#e case!

#ile t#e case was pendin%, Cirtek and CELU entered into a )emorandum o' A%reement()*A w#ereby Cirtek a%reed to increase t#e wa%e by + !00 per day! Later, &ecretary o' Labor'inally came up wit# a decision orderin% Cirtek to increase t#e employees- wa%es by a minimumo' +.0!00 to a ma/imum o' +.5!00 per day (dependin% on seniority !

Cirtek assailed t#e order o' t#e &ecretary on t#e %round t#at it $iolates t#e )*A! CELU on t#eot#er #and a%reed wit# t#e &ecretary in$okin% t#at Cirtek a%reed t#at s#ould t#e &ecretary order'or a #i%#er wa%e increase, t#e same s#ould be 'ollowed and not t#e )*A! "#is a%reement was

#owe$er not included in t#e )*A but was embodied in t#e minutes o' t#e meetin% w#en t#e)*A was done!

ISSUE:

#et#er or not t#e &ecretary o' Labor may issue an order supersedin% t#e said )*A!

HELD: 1es! "#e order was issued in resolution o' t#e CBA dispute o$er w#ic# t#e &ecretaryassumed urisdiction! "#e order is an arbitral award w#ic# can be considered an appro/imationo' a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement w#ic# would ot#erwise #a$e been entered into by t#e

parties, #ence, it #as t#e 'orce and e''ect o' a $alid contract obli%ation!

"#e &upreme Court, #owe$er, clari'ied t#at t#e &ecretary-s order s#ould be complied not merely because it is #i%#er t#an w#at t#e )*A pro$ides! "#e order was based on e$identiary documents presented by bot# parties particularly on t#e 'inancial outlook o' Cirtek!

But was it proper for the Secretary to decide the case despite the submission of the MOA?

1es, in t#e 'irst place, CELU mani'ested t#at t#e )*A was entered into sub ect to a more'a$orable decision by t#e &ecretary! 3urt#er, it bears notin% t#at since t#e 'ilin% and submissiono' t#e )*A did not #a$e t#e e''ect o' di$estin% t#e &ecretary o' #is urisdiction, or o'automatically disposin% t#e contro$ersy, t#en neit#er s#ould t#e pro$isions o' t#e )*A restrict

t#e &ecretary-s leeway in decidin% t#e matters be'ore #im!

The agreement that the MOA provision may be superseded by a more favorable order by theSecretary was not contained in the MOA itself, does this bind Cirte ?

1es! In labor cases pendin% be'ore t#e Commission or t#e Labor Arbiter 4in t#is case, t#e&ecretary o' Labor , t#e rules o' e$idence pre$ailin% in courts o' law or e6uity are notcontrollin%! 7ules o' procedure and e$idence are not applied in a $ery ri%id and tec#nical sense


2/18

in labor cases! 8ence, t#e Labor Arbiter is not precluded 'rom acceptin% and e$aluatin% e$idenceot#er t#an, and e$en contrary to, w#at is stated in t#e CBA! "#ere'ore, t#e a%reement bindsCirtek and can be pro$en by mere presentation o' t#e minutes! In s#ort, t#e parol e$idence rule isnot applicable to labor cases!

Philippine Skylanders vs NL C! "#$%$&

Fa'ts:

In 9o$ember . : t#e +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association (+&EA , a local laborunion a''iliated wit# t#e +#ilippine Association o' 3ree Labor Unions (+A3LU , won in t#ecerti'ication election conducted amon% t#e rank and 'ile employees o' +#ilippine &kylanders,Inc! (+&I ! Its ri$al union, +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association; A"U (+&EA; A"Uimmediately protested t#e result o' t#e election be'ore t#e &ecretary o' Labor!

&e$eral mont#s later, +&EA sent +A3LU a notice o' disa''iliation!

+&EA subse6uently a''iliated itsel' wit# t#e 9ational Con%ress o' orkers (9C , c#an%ed itsname to +#ilippine &kylanders Employees Association < 9ational Con%ress o' orkers (+&EA;

9C , and to maintain continuity wit#in t#e or%ani=ation, allowed t#e 'ormer o''icers o' +&EA;+A3LU to continue occupyin% t#eir positions as elected o''icers in t#e newly;'ormed +&EA;

9C !

*n .> )arc# . ? +&EA;9C entered into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement wit# +&I w#ic#was immediately re%istered wit# t#e @epartment o' Labor and Employment!

)eanw#ile, apparently obli$ious to +&EA-s s#i't o' alle%iance, +A3LU &ecretary eneral&era'in Ayroso wrote )ariles C! 7omulo re6uestin% a copy o' +&I-s audited 'inancial statement!*n :0 uly . ? +&I t#rou%# its personnel mana%er 3rancisco @akila denied t#e re6uest citin% asreason +&EA-s disa''iliation 'rom +A3LU and its subse6uent a''iliation wit# 9C !

Iss(e *9 +&EA-s disa''iliation is le%itimate!

Held

At t#e outset, let it be noted t#at t#e issue o' disa''iliation is an inter;union con'lict t#e urisdiction o' w#ic# properly lies wit# t#e Bureau o' Labor 7elations (BL7 and not wit# t#e

Labor Arbiter!e up#eld t#e ri%#t o' local unions to separate 'rom t#eir mot#er 'ederation on t#e %round t#at

as separate and $oluntary associations, local unions do not owe t#eir creation and e/istence to t#enational 'ederation to w#ic# t#ey are a''iliated but, instead, to t#e will o' t#eir members! 1et t#elocal unions remain t#e basic units o' association, 'ree to ser$e t#eir own interests sub ect to t#erestraints imposed by t#e constitution and by;laws o' t#e national 'ederation, and 'ree also to


3/18

renounce t#e a''iliation upon t#e terms laid down in t#e a%reement w#ic# brou%#t suc# a''iliationinto e/istence!

"#ere is not#in% s#own in t#e records nor is it claimed by +A3LU t#at t#e local union wase/pressly 'orbidden to disa''iliate 'rom t#e 'ederation nor were t#ere any conditions imposed 'or

a $alid breakaway! As suc#, t#e pendency o' an election protest in$ol$in% bot# t#e mot#er'ederation and t#e local union did not constitute a bar to a $alid disa''iliation!

It was entirely reasonable t#en 'or +&I to enter into a collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement wit#+&EA;9C ! As +&EA #ad $alidly se$ered itsel' 'rom +A3LU, t#ere would be no restrictionsw#ic# could $alidly #inder it 'rom subse6uently a''iliatin% wit# 9C and enterin% into acollecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement in be#al' o' its members!

+olicy considerations dictate t#at in wei%#in% t#e claims o' a local union as a%ainst t#ose o' anational 'ederation, t#ose o' t#e 'ormer must be pre'erred! +arent#etically t#ou%#, t#e desires o't#e mot#er 'ederation to protect its locals are not alto%et#er to be s#unned! It will #owe$er be to

err %reatly a%ainst t#e Constitution i' t#e desires o' t#e 'ederation would be 'a$ored o$er t#ose o'its members! "#at, at any rate, is t#e policy o' t#e law! 3or i' it were ot#erwise, instead o' protection, t#ere would be disre%ard and ne%lect o' t#e lowly workin%men!

T )PICAL HUT E*PL)+EES, UNI)N -. T )PICALHUT F))D *A /ET INC."0" SC A"$%*EDIALDEA1 2an #34 "553

FACTS

; 7ank an d 'ile workers o' "ropical 8ut or%ani=ed a Union ("8EU and sou%#ta''iliation wit# 9A"U! 7e%istration certi'icate was issued by @epto' Labor! But 9A"U itsel'

was not re%istered as a 'ederation!; CBA was concluded bet t#e 2 parties!; @ila%, +res iden t o'Union, was appoin ted )ana%er! 8e resi%ned as +resident o' "8EU;9A"U! D+ Encinasassumed presidency!; "8EU wrote 9A"U sayin% t#ey want to disa''iliate 'rom t#e'ederation!"8EU a''iliated wit# C !; "8EU;C conducted elections and Encinas won!

9A"U re6uested"ropical 8ut to dismiss Encinas because o' #is $iolationsF!; "ropical 8utsuspended Encinas pendin% application 'or clearance wit#@ept o' Labor to dismiss #im! "8EU;C members protested!; Upon re6uest o' 9A"U, "ropical 8ut also suspended andappl ied 'or clearance to dismiss members and o''icers o' "8EU;C !; A petition was madeto cancel t#e word 9A"U a'ter t#e word "8EU int#e re%istration!; 9L7C directed certi'icationelection between "8EU;9A"U and "8EU;C ! 7einstatements o' complainants were alsoordered!

ISSUE6S

.! *9 petitioners 'ailed to e/#aust administrati$e remedies w#en t#eyimmed ia te ly ele$atedt#e case to t#is Court wit#out an appeal #a$ in% been made to t#e *''ice o' t#e +resident2! *9 disa''iliation o' local union 'rom t#e national 'ederation was $alid:! *9 dismi ssal o' pe titione r emp loyees resultin% 'ro m t#e ir un ions disa''iliation 'ort#e mot#er 'ederation was ille%al and constituted un'air labor practice


4/18

HELD

.! 9* ; 7emedy o ' ap pea l ' rom t #e & ecre ta r y o ' Labor to t#e * ' ' i ce o 't#e+resident is not a mandatory re6uirement be'ore resort to courts can be#ad, but an optional

relie' pro$ided by law to parties seekin% e/peditiousdisposition o' t#eir labor disputes!

2! 1E&; "#e ri%#t o' a local union to disa''iliate 'rom its mot#er 'ederation is well;settled! A localunion, bein% a separate and $oluntary association, is 'reeto ser$e t#e interest o' all its membersincludin% t#e 'reedom to disa''iliatew # e n c i r c u ms t a n c e s w a r r a n t ! " # i s r i % # t i sc o n s i s t e n t w i t # t # e constitutional %uarantee o' 'reedom o' association!; "#e inclusion o't#e word 9A"U a'ter t#e name o' t#e local union "8EUin t#e re%istration wit# t#e @epartmento' Labor is merely to stress t#at t#e"8EU is 9A"UGs a''iliate at t#e time o' t#e re%istration! Itdoes not meant#at t#e said local union cannot stand on its own!; In t#e absence o' en'orceable

pro$isions in t#e 'ederationGs constitutionpre$entin% disa''iliation o' a local union a local mayse$er its relations#ipwit# its parent! "#ere is not#in% in t#e constitution o' t#e 9A"U or in

t#econstitution o' t#e "8EU;9A"U t#at t#e "8EU was e/pressly 'orbidden todisa''iliate 'romt#e 'ederation! 3irstly, 9A"U was not e$en a le%itimatelabor or%ani=ation, it appearin% t#at itwas not re%istered! &econdly, t#eact o' non;compliance wit# t#e procedure on wit#drawal is

premised onpurely tec#nical %rounds w#ic# cannot rise abo$e t#e 'undamental ri%#t o' sel';or%ani=ation!; "#ere is no merit in t#e contention o' t#e respondents t#at t#e acto' disa''iliation $iolated t#e union security clause o' t#e CBA and t#at t#eir dismissal as aconse6uence t#ereo' is $alid! A perusal o' t#e collecti$ebar%ainin% a%reements s#ows t#at t#e"8EU;9A"U, and not t#e 9A"U'ederation, was reco%ni=ed as t#e sole and e/clusi$e collecti$e

bar%ainin%a%ent! Alt#ou%# 9A"U was desi%nated as t#e sole bar%ainin% a%ent int#e c#eck;o''aut#ori=ation 'orm attac#ed to t#e CBA, t#is simply means itwas actin% only 'or and in be#al' o'its a''iliate! 9A"U possessed t#estatus o' an a%ent w#ile t#e local union remained t#e basic

principalunion!

:! 1E&; "#e union security clause embodied in t#e a%reements cannot beused to usti'y t#edismissals! CBA imposes dismissal only in casean employee is e/pelled 'rom t#e union 'or

oinin% anot#er 'ederationor 'o r 'o rmin% ano t#er un ion or w#o 'a il s or re 'u se s tomaintainmembers# ip t#ere in! "#e case a t b ar d oes n o t in$ ol$e t#e wit#drawalo' merely some employees 'rom t#e union but o' t#ew#ole "8EU itsel' 'rom its'ederation!; it# re%ard to t#e process by w#ic# t#e workers were suspendedor dismissed, t#isCourt 'inds t#at it was #astily and summarily donewit#out t#e necessary due process

Elis'o7Elirol La8or Union 9NAFLU vs Noriel

Fa'ts:

Elisco;Elirol Labor Union (9A3LU ne%otiated and e/ecuted a CBA wit# Eli=alde &teelConsolidated Inc! 8owe$er, Elisco;Elirol t#en was not yet a re%istered union! In order to be ableto e/ecute t#e CBA, t#ey #ad t#e union re%istered, w#ic# was %ranted! "#ey likewise mo$ed todisa''iliate t#emsel$es wit# 9A3LU! Eli=alde, #owe$er, re'used to reco%ni=ed t#em as t#e
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/elisco-elirol-labor-union-naflu-vs.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/elisco-elirol-labor-union-naflu-vs.html


5/18

&EBA and it dismissed t#e o''icers o' t#e union because o' t#e union security clause in t#e CBA!Elisco;Elirol 'iled a complaint 'or un'air labor practice wit# t#e BL7! "#e BL7 dismissed!

Iss(e: #et#er or not Elisco;Elirol is t#e &EBA

Held:1E&! "#e error o' BL7 is not percei$in% t#at t#e employees and members o' t#e local union didnot 'orm a new union but merely re%istered t#e local union as was t#eir ri%#t! +etitioner Elisco;Elirol Labor Union;9A3LU, consistin% o' employees and members o' t#e local union was t#e

principal party to t#e a%reement! 9A3LU as t#e mot#er unionH in participatin% in t#e e/ecutiono' t#e bar%ainin% a%reement wit# respondent company acted merely as a%ent o' t#e local union,w#ic# remained t#e basic unit o' t#e association e/istin% principally and 'reely to ser$e t#ecommon interest o' all its members, includin% t#e 'reedom to disa''iliate w#en t#e circumstancesso warranted as in t#e present case!

H(" #e locals are separate and distinct units primarily desi%ned to secure and maintain ane6uality o' bar%ainin% power between t#e employer and t#eir employee;members in t#eeconomic stru%%le 'or t#e 'ruits o' t#e oint producti$e e''ort o' labor and capital and t#eassociation o' t#e locals into t#e national union (as +A3LU was in 'urt#erance o' t#e same end!"#ese associations are consensual entities capable o' enterin% into suc# le%al relations wit# t#eirmembers! "#e essential purpose was t#e a''iliation o' t#e local unions into a common enterpriseto increase by collecti$e action t#e common bar%ainin% power in respect o' t#e terms andconditions o' labor! 1et t#e locals remained t#e basic units o' association, 'ree to ser$e t#eir ownand t#e common interest o' all, sub ect to t#e restraints imposed by t#e Constitution and By;Laws o' t#e Association, and 'ree also to renounce t#e a''iliation 'or mutual wel'are upon t#eterms laid down in t#e a%reement w#ic# brou%#t it into e/istence!H (Liberty Cotton )ills

orkers Union $s! Liberty Cotton )ills Inc!

&uc# maintenance o' t#e members#ip clause could not be so distorted!! #at is paramount is t#esecurity o' tenure o' t#e workers and not t#e security o' t#e union!

S.S. -ENTU ES INTE NATI)NAL4 INC.4 PETITI)NE 4 -S. S.S. -ENTU ES LA;)UNI)N 9SS-LU AND DI . HANS LE) CACDAC4 IN HIS CAPACIT+ AS DI ECT))F THE ;U EAU )F LA;) ELATI)NS 9;L 4 ESP)NDENTS.!. . No. "


6/18

)arc# 2., 2000, t#e Union 'iled wit# @*LE;7e%ion III a petition 'or certi'ication election in be#al' o' t#e rank;and;'ile employees

Au%ust 2., 2000, Dentures 'iled a +etition to cancel t#e Union-s certi'icate o' re%istrationalle%in% t#at t#e Union deliberately and maliciously included t#e names o' more or less K2

'ormer employees no lon%er connected wit# Dentures in its list o' members w#o attended t#eor%ani=ational meetin% and in t#e adoption rati'ication o' its constitution and by;laws t#at 9oor%ani=ational meetin% and rati'ication actually took place and t#e Union-s application 'orre%istration was not supported by at least 20M o' t#e rank;and;'ile employees o' Dentures!

7e%ional @irector o' @*LE; 7e%ion III 'a$ored Dentures and resol$ed to Cancel t#e Certi'icateo' t#e union! *n appeal, t#e BL7 @irector %ranted t#e Union-s appeal and re$ersin% t#e decisiono' 7@! Dentures went to t#e CA! "#e CA dismissed Dentures- petition as well as t#e )7!8ence, t#is petition 'or re$iew

ISSUE

#et#er t#e re%istration o' t#e Union must be cancelled!

ULIN! 9*! "#e ri%#t to 'orm, oin, or assist a union is speci'ically protected by Art! NIII, &ection : o't#e Constitution and suc# ri%#t, accordin% to Art! III, &ec! K o' t#e Constitution and Art! 2?O o't#e Labor Code, s#all not be abrid%ed! *nce re%istered wit# t#e @*LE, a union is considered ale%itimate labor or%ani=ation endowed wit# t#e ri%#t and pri$ile%es %ranted by law to suc#or%ani=ation! #ile a certi'icate o' re%istration con'ers a union wit# le%itimacy wit# t#econcomitant ri%#t to participate in or ask 'or certi'ication election in a bar%ainin% unit, t#ere%istration may be canceled or t#e union may be decerti'ied as t#e bar%ainin% unit, in w#ic#

case t#e union is di$ested o' t#e status o' a le%itimate labor or%ani=ation! Amon% t#e %rounds 'orcancellation is t#e commission o' any o' t#e acts enumerated in Art! 2: (a o' t#e Labor Code,suc# as 'raud and misrepresentation in connection wit# t#e adoption or rati'ication o' t#e union-sconstitution and like documents! "#e Court, #as in pre$ious cases, said t#at to decerti'y a union,it is not enou%# to s#ow t#at t#e union includes ineli%ible employees in its members#ip! It mustalso be s#own t#at t#ere was misrepresentation, 'alse statement, or 'raud in connection wit# t#eapplication 'or re%istration and t#e supportin% documents, suc# as t#e adoption or rati'ication o't#e constitution and by;laws or amendments t#ereto and t#e minutes o' rati'ication o' t#econstitution or by;laws, amon% ot#er documents!

"#e e$idence presented by Dentures consist mostly o' separate #and;written statements o' K2

employees w#o alle%ed t#at t#ey were unwillin% or #arassed si%natories to t#e attendance s#eeto' t#e or%ani=ational meetin%! 8owe$er t#ese e$idence was presented se$en mont#s a'ter t#eunion 'iled its petition 'or cancellation o' re%istration! 8ence t#ese statements partake o' t#enature o' wit#drawal o' union members#ip e/ecuted a'ter t#e Union-s 'ilin% o' a petition 'orcerti'ication election on )arc# 2., 2000! e #a$e said t#at t#e employees- wit#drawal 'rom alabor union made be'ore t#e 'ilin% o' t#e petition 'or certi'ication election is presumed $oluntary,w#ile wit#drawal a'ter t#e 'ilin% o' suc# petition is considered to be in$oluntary and does nota''ect t#e same! 9ow t#en, i' a wit#drawal 'rom union members#ip done a'ter a petition 'or


7/18

certi'ication election #as been 'iled does not $itiate suc# petition, it is but lo%ical to assume t#atsuc# wit#drawal cannot work to nulli'y t#e re%istration o' t#e union! "#e Court is inclined toa%ree wit# t#e CA t#at t#e BL7 did not abuse its discretion nor %ra$ely err w#en it concludedt#at t#e a''ida$its o' retraction o' t#e K2 members #ad no e$identiary wei%#t!

"#e re%istration or t#e reco%nition o' a labor union a'ter it #as submitted t#e correspondin% papers is not ministerial on t#e part o' t#e BL7! It becomes mandatory 'or t#e BL7 to c#eck i't#e re6uirements under Art! 2:? o' t#e Labor Code #a$e been sedulously complied wit#! I' t#eunion-s application is in'ected by 'alsi'ication and like serious irre%ularities, especially t#oseappearin% on t#e 'ace o' t#e application and its attac#ments, a union s#ould be deniedreco%nition as a le%itimate labor or%ani=ation! "#e issuance to t#e Union o' Certi'icate o'7e%istration, in t#e case at bar, necessarily implies t#at its application 'or re%istration and t#esupportin% documents t#ereo' are prima 'acie 'ree 'rom any $itiatin% irre%ularities!

"#e rele$ance o' t#e K2 indi$iduals- acti$e participation in t#e Union-s or%ani=ational meetin%and t#e si%nin% ceremonies t#erea'ter comes in only 'or purposes o' determinin% w#et#er or not

t#e Union, e$en wit#out t#e K2, would still meet w#at Art! 2:?(c o' t#e Labor Code re6uires to be submitted, re6uirin% t#at t#e union applicant must 'ile t#e names o' all its memberscomprisin% at least twenty percent (20M o' all t#e employees in t#e bar%ainin% unit w#ere itseeks to operate!

In its union records on 'ile wit# t#is Bureau, respondent union submitted t#e names o' 5?2members! "#is number easily complied wit# t#e 20M re6uirement, be it ., 2K or 2,202employees in t#e establis#ment! E$en subtractin% t#e K2 employees 'rom 5?2 lea$es ?O0 unionmembers, still wit#in ??0 or 20M o' t#e ma/imum total o' 2,202 rank;and;'ile employees o' t#eemployer Denture!

#ate$er mis%i$in%s t#e petitioner may #a$e wit# re%ard to t#e K2 dismissed employees is betteraddressed in t#e inclusion;e/clusion proceedin%s durin% a pre;election con'erence! "#e issuesurroundin% t#e in$ol$ement o' t#e K2 employees is a matter o' members#ip or $oter eli%ibility!It is not a %round to cancel union re%istration!

3or 'raud and misrepresentation to be %rounds 'or cancellation o' union re%istration under Article2: , t#e nature o' t#e 'raud and misrepresentation must be %ra$e and compellin% enou%# to$itiate t#e consent o' a ma ority o' union members!

/iok Loy v. NL C"&" SC A "$5 9"50ement and to 'reate a 'limate o?so(nd and sta8le ind(strial pea'e ! It is a mutual responsibility o' t#e employer and t#e Union

and is c#aracteri=ed as a le%al obli%ation!P Arti'le #&54 par. 9> o? the La8or Code makes it an (n?air la8or pra'ti'e 'or an employerto re?(se Hto meet and 'onvene promptly and e/peditiously in >ood ?aith 'or t#e purpose o'ne%otiatin% an a%reement wit# respect to wa%es, #ours o' work, and all ot#er terms andconditions o' employment includin% proposals 'or ad ustin% any %rie$ance or 6uestion arisin%under suc# an a%reement and e/ecutin% a contract incorporatin% suc# a%reement, i' re6uested byeit#er party!

P "#e mec#anics o' collecti$e bar%ainin% are set in motion only w#en t#e 'ollowin% urisdictional preconditions are present, namely,

o (. possession o' t#e status o' ma ority representation o' t#e employeesG representati$e inaccordance wit# any o' t#e means o' selection or desi%nation pro$ided 'or by t#e Labor Code

o (2 proo' o' ma ority representation ando (: a demand to bar%ain under Article 25., par! (a o' t#e 9ew Labor Code!

P A CompanyGs re'usal to make counter proposal i' considered in relation to t#e entire bar%ainin% process, may indicate bad 'ait# since t#e UnionGs re6uest 'or a counter proposal is le't unanswered! Besides, petitioner CompanyGs approac# and attitude;stallin%t#e ne%otiation by a series o' postponements, non;appearance at t#e #earin% conducted,and undue delay in submittin% its 'inancial statements, lead to no ot#er conclusion e/ceptt#at it is unwillin% to ne%otiate and reac# an a%reement wit# t#e Union!

!ENE AL *ILLIN! C) P) ATI)N -S. H)N. C)U T )F APPEALS!. . No. "&


9/18

term o' t#ree years w#ic# will e/pire on 9o$ember :0, . .! *n 9o$ember 2 , . ., a day be'ore t#e e/piration o' t#e CBA, t#e union sent )C a proposed CBA, wit# a re6uest t#at acounter proposal be submitted wit#in ten days! on *ctober . ., )C recei$ed collecti$e andindi$idual letters 'rom t#e union members statin% t#at t#ey #a$e wit#drawn 'rom t#eir unionmembers#ip! *n @ecember . , . ., t#e union disclaimed any massi$e disa''iliation o' its unionmembers! *n anuary .:, . 2, )C dismissed an employee w#o is a union member! "#eunion protected t#e employee and re6uested )C to submit to t#e %rie$ance procedure pro$ided

by t#e CBA, but )C ar%ued t#at t#ere was no basis to ne%otiate wit# a union w#ic# is nolon%er e/istin%! "#e union t#en 'iled a case wit# t#e Labor Arbiter but t#e latter ruled t#at t#eremust 'irst be a certi'ication election to determine i' t#e union still en oys t#e support o' t#eworkers!

Iss(e:

#et#er or not )C is %uilty o' un'air labor practice 'or $iolatin% its duty to bar%aincollecti$ely and or 'or inter'erin% wit# t#e ri%#t o' its employees to sel';or%ani=ation!

Held:

)C is %uilty o' un'air labor practice w#en it re'used to ne%otiate wit# t#e union upon itsre6uest 'or t#e rene%otiation o' t#e economic terms o' t#e CBA on 9o$ember 2 , . .! t#eunion-s proposal was submitted wit#in t#e prescribed :;year period 'rom t#e date o' e''ecti$ityo' t#e CBA! It was ob$ious t#at )C #ad no $alid reason to re'use to ne%otiate in %ood 'ait#wit# t#e union! "#e re'usal to send counter proposal to t#e union and to bar%ain anew on t#eeconomic terms o' t#e CBA is tantamount to an un'air labor practice under Article 2?K o' t#eLabor Code!Under Article 252 o' t#e Labor Code, bot# parties are re6uired to per'orm t#eir mutual obli%ationto meet and con$ene promptly and e/peditiously in %ood 'ait# 'or t#e purpose o' ne%otiatin% ana%reement! "#e union li$ed up to t#is obli%ation w#en it presented proposals 'or a new CBA to

)C wit#in : years 'rom t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e ori%inal CBA! But )C 'ailed in its duty underArticle 252! #at it did was to de$ise a 'limsy e/cuse, by 6uestionin% t#e e/istence o' t#e unionand t#e status o' its members#ip to pre$ent any ne%otiation! It bears stressin% t#at t#e procedurein collecti$e bar%ainin% prescribed by t#e Code is mandatory because o' t#e basic interest o' t#estate in ensurin% lastin% industrial peace!

"#e Court o' Appeals 'ound t#at t#e letters between 3ebruary to une, . : by .: unionmembers si%ni'yin% t#eir resi%nation 'rom t#e union clearly indicated t#at )C e/erted pressureon t#e employees! e a%ree wit# t#e Court o' Appeals- conclusion t#at t#e ill;timed letters o'resi%nation 'rom t#e union members indicate t#at )C inter'ered wit# t#e ri%#t o' its employeeto sel';or%ani=ation!


10/18

SAN PED ) H)SPITAL )F DI!)S4 INC.4 petitioner,$s!SEC ETA + )F LA;) 4 THE SAN PED ) H)SPITAL E*PL)+EES UNI)N @NATI)NAL FEDE ATI)N )F LA;) 4 respondents!

FACTS

+etitioner #ad a t#ree;year collecti$e bar%ainin% a%reement (CBA co$erin% t#e period@ecember .5, . K> until @ecember .5, . 0, wit# #erein pri$ate respondent, !ag abiusang

Mamumuo sa San "edro #ospital of $igos % !ational &ederation of 'abor (9A)A&A+;93L ,t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% a%ent o' t#e #ospital-s rank;and;'ile workers! A'ter t#e parties 'ailed toreac# a%reement on t#e issues o' raisin% wa%es, t#e union durin% t#e meetin% o' 3ebruary . ,. . declared a deadlock!

*n 3ebruary 20, . ., respondent union saturated petitioner-s premises wit# streamers and picketed t#e #ospital! "#e operations o' t#e #ospital #a$in% come to a %rindin% #alt, t#e #ospital

mana%ement considered t#e union actions as tantamount to a strike! *n )ay 2K, . .,respondent union struck! @espite t#e 9C)B-s call 'or a conciliation con'erence, nurses andnurse aides w#o were members o' t#e union abandoned t#eir respecti$e department and oinedt#e picket line a week later! @octors be%an lea$in% t#e #ospital and t#e number o' patientsdwindled! "#e last patient was disc#ar%ed on une .0, . .!

*n une .2, . ., a 9otice o' "emporary &uspension o' *perationF was issued by petitioner#ospital and submitted to t#e local o''ice o' t#e 9C)B on une .?, . .! "#en &ecretary o'Labor 9ie$es Con'essor assumed urisdiction o$er t#e labor dispute and issued an order directin%all workers to return to work! 8owe$er, t#is order was recei$ed by petitioner only on une 20,. .! In t#e meantime, it #ad already noti'ied t#e @*LE $ia its letter dated une .:, . ., w#ic#

was recei$ed by t#e @*LE on une .?, . ., t#at it would temporarily suspend operations 'orsi/ (O mont#s e''ecti$e une .5, . ., or up to @ecember .5, . .! +etitioner t#us re'used t#ereturn o' its strikin% workers on account o' suc# suspension o' operations!

ISSUE

*9 t#e &ecretary can $alidly compel t#e employer to enter into a new CBA e$en durin%temporary suspension o' operations (w#at i' in permanent closure

ULIN!:

Temporary s(spension o? operations is re'o>ni=ed as a valid e er'ise o? mana>ementprero>ative provided it is not 'arried o(t in order to 'ir'(mvent the provisions o? theLa8or Code or to de?eat the ri>hts o? the employees under t#e Code! "#e determination tocease or suspend operations is a prero%ati$e o' mana%ement t#at t#e &tate usually does notinter'ere wit#, as no business can be re6uired to continue operatin% at a loss simply to maintaint#e workers in employment! &uc# an act would be tantamount to a takin% o' property wit#out due

process o' law, w#ic# t#e employer #as a ri%#t to resist! But w#ere it is s#own t#at t#e closure ismoti$ated not by a desire to pre$ent 'urt#er losses, but to discoura%e t#e workers 'rom


11/18

or%ani=in% t#emsel$es into a union 'or more e''ecti$e ne%otiation wit# mana%ement, t#e &tate is bound to inter$ene!

"#e burden o' pro$in% t#at suc# a temporary suspension is bona fide 'alls upon t#e employer! Int#is instance, petitioner #ad to establis# t#e 'act o' its precarious 'inancial #ealt#, t#at its

cessation o' operation was really necessitated by its 'inancial condition, and t#at said conditionwould probably be alle$iated or impro$ed, or its losses abated, by undertakin% suc# suspensiono' operation! "#e 'act t#at t#e conciliator ne$er asked 'or t#em is no su''icient e/cuse 'or not

presentin% t#e same, as suc# was petitioner-s duty! 9eit#er is it acceptable 'or petitioner to alle%et#at latest 'inancial statement ('or t#e year . . were still bein% prepared by its accountants andnot yet ready 'or submission, since t#e 'inancial statement 'or t#e prior years . K and . 0would #a$e su''iced!

It is a horn8ook r(le t#at employers w#o contemplate terminatin% t#e ser$ices o' t#eir workersmust base t#eir decisions on more t#an ust 'limsy e/cuses, considerin% t#at t#e dismissal o' anemployee 'rom work in$ol$es not only t#e loss o' #is position but, w#at is more important, #is

means o' li$eli#ood! "#e same principle applies in temporary suspension o' operations, as in t#iscase, considerin% t#at it in$ol$es layin% o'' employees 'or a period o' si/ mont#s! +etitioner,#a$in% wretc#edly 'ailed to usti'y by e$en t#e most rudimentary proo' its temporary suspensiono' operations, must bear t#e conse6uences t#ereo'! e t#us #old t#at t#e &ecretary o' Labor andEmployment did not act wit# %ra$e abuse o' discretion in 'indin% t#e temporary suspensionun usti'ied and ille%al!

The order o? the se'retary in orderin> the hospital to enter into a neB C;A Bas valid.

&ecretary was o' t#e impression t#at petitioner would operate a%ain a'ter t#e lapse o' t#e si/;mont# suspension o' operations on @ecember .O, . ., and so ordered t#e parties to enter into

and 'ormali=e a new CBA to %o$ern t#eir relations upon resumption o' operations! *n t#e ot#er#and, t#e a'ore6uoted portion o' t#e *rder must be understood in t#e conte/t o' t#e &ecretary-s'indin% t#at t#e temporary suspension was only 'or circum$entin% t#e return;to;work order, butin spite o' w#ic# #e #eld t#at #e could not order petitioner to continue operations as t#is wouldin'rin%e on its in#erent ri%#t to mana%e and conduct its own business a''airsF #e t#us orderedinstead t#e payment o' backwa%es to t#e returnin% workers w#o were re'used admittance by

petitioner on une 2., . .! And as abo$e ad$erted to, he also ordered the parties to e e'(te aneB C;A to >overn their relations (pon the e piry o? the period o? s(spension and theres(mption o? normal operations.

Did the Se'retary a't in e 'ess o? (risdi'tion in imposin> the Ba>e in'rease and (nion

shop provision on the petitioner e hold that he did not.#ile petitioner cannot be 'orced

to abandon its suspension o' operations e$en i' said suspension be declared un usti'ied, ille%aland in$alid, neit#er can petitioner e$ade its obli%ation to bar%ain wit# t#e union, usin% t#ecessation o' its business as reason t#ere'or! 3or, as already indicated abo$e, t#e employer;employee relations#ip was merely suspended (and not terminated 'or t#e duration o' t#etemporary suspension! Usin% t#e suspension as an e/cuse to e$ade t#e duty to bar%ain is 'urt#er

proo' o' its ille%ality! It s#ows abuse o' t#is option and bad 'ait# on t#e part o' petitioner! Andsince it re'used to bar%ain, wit#out $alid and su''icient cause, t#e &ecretary in t#e e/ercise o' #is


12/18

powers under Article 2O:(i o' t#e Labor Code to decide and resol$e labor disputes, properly%ranted t#e wa%e increase and imposed t#e union s#op pro$ision!

NotBithstandin> that respondent Se'retary did not a't Bith >rave a8(se o? dis'retion iniss(in> the 'hallen>ed )rders4 Be 'annot i>nore the s(pervenin> event Bhi'h o''(rred

a?ter De'em8er " 4 "55"4 i .e .4 the s(8seG(ent permanent 'essation o? petition o? petitioneron a''o(nt o? losses. "#us, despite t#e absence o' %ra$e abuse o' discretion on t#e part o' t#erespondent &ecretary, t his Co(rt 'annot impose (pon petitioner the dire'tive to enter into aneB C;A Bith the (nion ?or the very simple reason that to do so Bo(ld 8e to 'ompelpetitioner to 'ontin(e its 8(siness Bhen it had already de'ided to 'lose shop4 and thatBo(ld 8e (di'ial tyranny on o(r part.

ivera vs Espirit(

! No. "% &$ 2an(ary #%4 #33#

FACTS*n &eptember .>, . K, +AL in'ormed t#e Inter;A%ency "ask 3orce created to address t#e problems o' t#e ailin% 'la% carrier, t#at it was s#uttin% down its operations e''ecti$e &eptember2:, . KK, claimin% t#at %i$en its labor problems, re#abilitation was no lon%er 'easible!

"#e ne/t day, t#e +AL Employees Association (+ALEA sou%#t t#e inter$ention o' t#e *''ice o't#e +resident to pre$ent t#e imminent closure o' +AL! *n &eptember 2:, +AL ceased itsoperations and sent notices o' termination to its employees! "wo days later, +A LA o''ered a.0;year moratorium on strikes and similar actions and a wai$er o' some o' t#e economic bene'itsin t#e e/istin% CBA!

*n &eptember 2>, 2 KK, t#e +A LA board a%ain wrote t#e +resident proposin% terms andconditions, sub ect to rati'ication by t#e %eneral members#ip! "#ese include t#e suspension o't#e +AL;+ALEA CBA 'or a period o' ten years, +AL-s continuin% reco%nition o' +ALEA as t#ecerti'ied bar%ainin% a%ent o' t#e re%ular rank and 'ile %round employees o' t#e company, respect'or t#e union s#op maintenance o' membersipF pro$ision under t#e +AL;+ALEA CBA and nosalary deduction wit# 'ull medical bene'its! "#e +AL mana%ement accepted t#e +ALEA

proposal and t#e necessary re'erendum was sc#eduled! *' t#e $otes cast, O.M o' 'a$ored t#e+AL;+ALEA a%reement!

*n *ctober >, . K, +AL resumed operations! *n t#e same date, se$en o''icers and members o'+ALEA 'iled a petition to annul t#e a%reement on t#e 'ollowin% %rounds

. ra$e abuse o' discretion by public respondents in acti$ely pursuin% t#e +AL;+ALEAa%reement on t#e constitutional ri%#t to sel';or%ani=ation and collecti$e bar%ainin% cannot bewai$ed nor t#e wai$er rati'ied

2 +ublic respondents %ra$ely abused t#eir discretion and e/ceeded t#eir urisdiction in presidin%o$er t#e conclusion o' +AL;+ALEA a%reement under t#reat o' abusi$e e/ercise o' +AL-smana%ement prero%ati$e to close business used as subter'u%e 'or union;bustin%!


13/18

ISSUES. *9 t#e or%inal action 'or certiorari and pro#ibition is t#e proper remedy to annul t#e +AL;+ALEA a%reement2 *9 t#e a%reement is unconstitutional and contrary to public policy

HELD. 9o! "#e assailed a%reement does not meet t#e essential re6uirements 'or certiorari under 7uleO5! #at e/ists is a contract between a pri$ate 'irm and one o' its labor unions, albeit enteredinto wit# t#e assistance o' t#e "ask 3orce! "#e ob ect o' t#e action is actually t#e nulli'ication o't#e +AL;+ALEA a%reement! As suc#, t#e proper remedy is an ordinary ci$il action 'orannulment o' contract, an action w#ic# properly belon%s to t#e urisdiction o' t#e 7"C!

2 9o! CBA under Article 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code #as a two;'old purpose! *ne is to promoteindustrial stability and predictability! Inasmuc# as t#e a%reement sou%#t to promote industrial

peace, at t#e +AL durin% its re#abilitation, said a%reement satis'ied t#e 'irst purpose o' saidarticle! "#e ot#er purpose is to assi%n speci'ic timetable, w#erein ne%otiations become a matter

o' ri%#t and re6uirement! 9ot#in% in Article 25:;A pro#ibits t#e parties 'rom wai$in% orsuspendin% t#e mandatory timetable and a%reein% on t#e remedies to en'orce t#e same!

SAN *I!UEL C) P) ATI)N E*PL)+EES UNI)N7PT! )4 represented 8y itsPresident A+*UND) HIP)LIT)4 2 . $s! H)N. *A. NIE-ES D. C)NFES) 4Se'retary o? La8or4 Dept. o? La8or Employment4 SAN *I!UEL C) P) ATI)N4*A!N)LIA C) P) ATI)N 9Formerly4 *a>nolia Plant and SAN *I!UEL F))DS4INC. 9Formerly4 ;7*e> Plant

FACTS: *n une 2K, . 0, petitioner;union &an )i%uel Corporation Employees Union R+" * entered into a CBA wit# pri$ate respondent &an )i%uel Corporation (&)C to take

e''ect upon t#e e/piration o' t#e pre$ious CBA or on une :0, . K !"#is CBA pro$ided, amon% ot#ers, t#at

A7"ICLE NID

$()AT*O! O& A+) M !T

&ec! .! This Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective and shall remain in force and effect until .une /0,1223 !

&ec! 2! *n accordance with Article 34/-A of the 'abor Code as amended, the term of this Agreement insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall be for five 546 years from .uly1, 1272 to .une /0, 1228 ! #ence, the freedom period for purposes of such representation shallbe si9ty 5:06 days prior to .une /0, 1228 !

&ec! :! Si9ty 5:06 days prior to .une /0, 1223 either party may initiate negotiations of all provisions of this Agreement, e9cept insofar as the representation aspect is concerned ! *f no


14/18

agreement is reached in such negotiations, this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in force upto the time a subse;uent agreement is reached by the parties !

)eanw#ile, e''ecti$e *ctober ., . ., )a%nolia and 3eeds and Li$estock @i$ision were spun;o'' and became two separate and distinct corporations )a%nolia Corporation ()a%nolia and

&an )i%uel 3oods, Inc! (&)3I ! 9otwit#standin% t#e spin;o''s, t#e CBA remained in 'orce ande''ect!

A'ter une :0, . 2, t#e CBA was rene%otiated in accordance wit# t#e terms o' t#e CBA andArticle 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code! 9e%otiations started sometime in uly, . 2 wit# t#e two

parties submittin% t#eir respecti$e proposals and counterproposals!

@urin% t#e ne%otiations, t#e petitioner;union insisted t#at t#e bar%ainin% unit o' &)C s#ould stillinclude t#e employees o' t#e spun;o'' corporations )a%nolia and &)3I and t#at t#erene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA s#all be e''ecti$e only 'or t#e remainin% period o' two years oruntil une :0, . ?!

&)C, on t#e ot#er #and, contended t#at t#e members employees w#o #ad mo$ed to )a%noliaand &)3I, automatically ceased to be part o' t#e bar%ainin% unit at t#e &)C! 3urt#ermore, t#eCBA s#ould be e''ecti$e 'or t#ree years in accordance wit# Art! 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code!

Unable to a%ree on t#ese issues wit# respect to t#e bar%ainin% unit and duration o' t#e CBA, petitioner;union declared a deadlock on &eptember 2 , . 0!

(9otice o' strikeS&ecretary assumed urisdiction

&ecretary-s decision t#e CBA s#all be e''ecti$e 'or t#e period o' : years 'rom une :0, . 2

and t#at suc# CBA s#all co$er only t#e employees o' &)C and not o' )a%nolia and &)3I!

ISSUES: . #et#er or not t#e duration o' t#e rene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA is to be e''ecti$e'or t#ree years o' 'or only two years and 2 #et#er or not t#e bar%ainin% unit o' &)C includesalso t#e employees o' t#e )a%nolia and &)3I!

ULIN!: e a%ree wit# t#e &ecretary o' Labor!

+ertinent to t#e 'irst issue is Art! 25:;A o' t#e Labor Code as amended w#ic# reads

Art! 25:;A! Terms of a CBA ! R Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the

representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of 4 years ! 9o petition 6uestionin% t#e ma oritystatus o' t#e incumbent bar%ainin% a%ent s#all be entertained and no certi'ication election s#all be conducted by t#e @epartment o' Labor and Employment outside o' t#e si/ty;day periodimmediately be'ore t#e date o' e/piry o' suc# 'i$e year term o' t#e CBA! All other provisions ofthe CBA shall be renegotiated not later than / years after its e9ecution ! Any a%reement on suc#ot#er pro$isions o' t#e CBA entered into wit#in O mont#s 'rom t#e date o' e/piry o' t#e term o'suc# ot#er pro$isions as 'i/ed in suc# CBA, s#all retroact to t#e day immediately 'ollowin% suc#date! I' any suc# a%reement is entered into beyond si/ mont#s, t#e parties s#all a%ree on t#e


15/18

duration o' retroacti$ity t#ereo'! In case o' a deadlock in t#e rene%otiation o' t#e CBA, t#e parties may e/ercise t#eir ri%#ts under t#is Code! (Emp#asis supplied!

"#e representation aspectF re'ers to t#e identity and ma ority status o' t#e union t#at ne%otiatedt#e CBA as t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% representati$e o' t#e appropriate bar%ainin% unit concerned!

All ot#er pro$isionsF simply re'ers to t#e rest o' t#e CBA, economic as well as non;economic pro$isions, e/cept representation!

"#e law is clear and de'inite on t#e duration o' t#e CBA inso'ar as t#e representation aspect isconcerned, but is 6uite ambi%uous wit# t#e terms o' t#e ot#er pro$isions o' t#e CBA! It is acardinal principle o' statutory construction t#at t#e Court must ascertain t#e le%islati$e intent 'ort#e purpose o' %i$in% e''ect to any statute!

(as usual ma#aban% con$ersation n% m%a 'ramers

*b$iously, t#e 'ramers o' t#e law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability by #a$in%

bot# mana%ement and labor work #armoniously to%et#er wit#out any disturbance! "#us, nooutside union can enter t#e establis#ment wit#in 5 years and c#allen%e t#e status o' t#eincumbent union as t#e e/clusi$e bar%ainin% a%ent! Likewise, t#e terms and conditions o'employment (economic and non;economic can not be 6uestioned by t#e employers oremployees durin% t#e period o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e CBA! "#e CBA is a contract between t#e

parties and t#e parties must respect t#e terms and conditions o' t#e a%reement! Nota8ly4 the?ramers o? the laB did not >ive a ?i ed term as to the e??e'tivity o? the terms and 'onditionso? employment. It 'an 8e >leaned ?rom their dis'(ssions that it Bas le?t to the parties to ?ithe period.

"#e issue as to t#e term o' t#e non;representation pro$isions o' t#e CBA need not belaboured .

The parties4 8y m(t(al a>reement4 enter into a rene>otiated 'ontra't Bith a term o? three9% years or one Bhi'h does not 'oin'ide Bith the said 7year term4 and said a>reement israti?ied 8y ma ority o? the mem8ers in the 8ar>ainin> (nit4 the s(8 e't 'ontra't is valid andle>al and there?ore4 8inds the 'ontra'tin> parties.

"#us, we do not 'ind any %ra$e abuse o' discretion on t#e part o' t#e &ecretary o' Labor in rulin%t#at t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e rene%otiated terms o' t#e CBA s#all be 'or : years!

II! Undeniably, t#e trans'ormation o' t#e companies was a mana%ement prero%ati$e and business ud%ment w#ic# t#e courts can not look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals! 9eit#er can we impute any bad 'ait# on t#e part o' &)C so as to usti'y t#e application o' t#e

doctrine o' piercin% t#e corporate $eil!"0

E$er mind'ul o' t#e employees- interests, mana%ement#as assured t#e concerned employees t#at t#ey will be absorbed by t#e new corporations wit#outloss o' tenure and retainin% t#eir present pay and bene'its accordin% to t#e e/istin%CBAs! "5 They Bere advised that (pon the e piration o? the C;As4 neB a>reements Bill 8ene>otiated 8etBeen the mana>ement o? the neB 'orporations and the 8ar>ainin>representatives o? the employees 'on'erned.


16/18

Indubitably, t#ere'ore, )a%nolia and &)3I became distinct entities wit# separate uridical personalities! "#us, t#ey can not belon% to a sin%le bar%ainin% unit!

)oreo$er, in determinin% an appropriate bar%ainin% unit, t#e test o' %roupin% is mutuality orcommonality o' interests! "#e employees sou%#t to be represented by t#e collecti$e bar%ainin%

a%ent must #a$e substantial mutual interests in terms o' employment and workin% conditions ase$inced by t#e type o' work t#ey per'ormed! ## Considerin% t#e spin;o''s, t#e companies wouldconse6uently #a$e t#eir respecti$e and distincti$e concerns in terms o' t#e nature o' work,wa%es, #ours o' work and ot#er conditions o' employment! Interests o? employees in thedi??erent 'ompanies per?or'e di??er. "#e nature o' t#eir products and scales o' business mayre6uire di''erent skills w#ic# must necessarily be commensurated by di''erent compensation

packa%es! "#e di''erent companies may #a$e di''erent $olumes o' work and di''erent workin%conditions! 3or suc# reason, t#e employees o' t#e di''erent companies see t#e need to %roupt#emsel$es to%et#er and or%ani=e t#emsel$es into distincti$e and di''erent %roups! It would t#en

be best to #a$e separate bar%ainin% units 'or t#e di''erent companies w#ere t#e employees can bar%ain separately accordin% to t#eir needs and accordin% to t#eir own workin% conditions!

L*! CHE*ICALS C) P4 L*! CHE*ICALS C) P $s!THE SEC ETA + )F THEDEPA T*ENT )F LA;) AND E*PL)+*ENT4 THE H)N. LE)NA D) A.

UISU*;IN!4 and CHE*ICAL ) /E ,S UNI)N

!. . No. "#$# April "$4 #33"

FACTS: L) C#emicals Corp, (petitioner is a domestic corp en%a%ed in t#e manu'acture andsale o' $arious kinds o' c#emical substances, includin% aluminum sul'ate w#ic# is essential in

puri'yin% water, and tec#nical %rade sul'uric acid used in t#ermal power plants! +etitioner #ast#ree di$isions, namely t#e *r%anic @i$ision, Inor%anic @i$ision and t#e +inamucan BulkCarriers! "#ere are two unions wit#in petitioner-s Inor%anic @i$ision! *ne union represents t#edaily paid employees and t#e ot#er union represents t#e mont#ly paid employees! C#emical

orkers Union, respondent, is a duly re%istered labor or%ani=ation actin% as t#e collecti$e bar%ainin% a%ent o' all t#e daily paid employees o' petitioner-s Inor%anic @i$ision!

&ometime in @ecember . 5, t#e petitioner and t#e respondent started ne%otiation 'or a newCBA as t#eir old CBA was about to e/pire! "#ey were able to a%ree on t#e political pro$isions o't#e new CBA, but no a%reement was reac#ed on t#e issue o' wa%e increase! "#e economic issueswere not also settled!

it# t#e CBA ne%otiations at a deadlock (&trikeS&ecretary assumed urisdiction

&ecretary o' Labor and Employment %ranted an increase o' +.?0 (#i%#er t#an t#e o''er o' petitioner;company o' +.:5 ! Also, as to t#e e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBAS&ec #eld

3. Effectivity of the new CBA


17/18

Article 253-A of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that when no new CBA is si nedd!rin a period of si" months from the e"piry date of the old CBA, the retroactivity periodshall be accordin to the parties# a reement, $nasm!ch as the parties co!ld not a ree on thisiss!e and since this %ffice has ass!med &!risdiction, then this matter now lies at the discretionof the 'ecretary of labor and Employment. (h!s the new Collective Bar ainin A reement

which the parties will si n p!rs!ant to this %rder shall retroact to )an!ary *, *++ .

petitioner contends t#at public respondent committed %ra$e abuse o' discretion w#en #e orderedt#at t#e new CBA w#ic# t#e parties will si%n s#all retroact to anuary ., . O

ISSUE: #et#er or not t#e new CBA s#all retroact

HELD:

+etitioner insists t#at public respondent-s discretion on t#e issue o' t#e date o' t#e e''ecti$ity o't#e new CBA is limited to eit#er (. lea$in% t#e matter o' t#e date o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBA

is limited to eit#er (. lea$in% t#e matter o' t#e date o' e''ecti$ity o' t#e new CBA to t#ea%reement o' t#e parties or (2 orderin% t#at t#e terms o' t#e new CBA be prospecti$ely applied!

It must be emp#asi=ed t#at respondent &ecretary assumed urisdiction o$er t#e dispute because itis impressed wit# national interest! As noted by t#e &ecretary, t#e petitioner corp was t#ensupplyin% t#e sul'ate re6uirements o' ) && as well as t#e sul'uric acid o' 9A+*C*7, andconse6uently, t#e continuation o' t#e strike would seriously a''ect t#e water supply o' )etro)anila and t#e power supply o' t#e Lu=on rid!F &uc# aut#ority o' t#e &ecretary to assume

urisdiction carries wit# it t#e power to determine t#e retroacti$ity o' t#e parties- CBA!

It is Bell settled in o(r (rispr(den'e that the a(thority o? the Se'retary o? La8or to ass(me

(risdi'tion over a la8or disp(te 'a(sin> or likely to 'a(se a strike or lo'ko(t in an ind(stryindispensa8le to national interest in'l(des and e tends to all G(estions and 'ontroversiesarisin> there?rom. The poBer is plenary and dis'retionary in nat(re to ena8le him toe??e'tively and e??i'iently dispose o? the primary disp(te.

"#is Court #eld in &t! Luke-s )edical Center, Inc! $s! "orres

There?ore in the a8sen'e o? the spe'i?i' provision o? laB prohi8itin> retroa'tivity o? thee??e'tivity o? the ar8itral aBards iss(ed 8y the Se'retary o? La8or p(rs(ant to Arti'le# o? the La8or Code4 s('h as herein involved4 p(8li' respondent is deemed vested Bithplenary poBers to determine the e??e'tivity thereo?.J

*E ALC) vs. H)N. UISU*;IN! 9"555

FACTS:A petition for certification election was 'iled by t#e labor or%ani=ation o' sta'' and tec#nicalemployees o' )E7ALC* seekin% to represent re%ular employees o' )E7ALC*! )E7ALC*contended t#at t#ose in t#e +atrol @i$ision and "reasury &ecurity &er$ice &ection, since t#eseemployees are tasked wit# pro$idin% security to t#e company, t#ey are not eli%ible to oin t#e


18/18

rank and 'ile bar%ainin% unit! "#e )ed;Arbiter ruled t#at #a$in% been e/cluded 'rom t#e e/istin%Collecti$e Bar%ainin% A%reement 'or rank and 'ile employees, t#ese employees #a$e t#e ri%#t to'orm a union o' t#eir own, e/cept t#ose employees per'ormin% mana%erial 'unctions! "#e&ecretary o' Labor a''irmed said *rder!

Iss(e:

LABREV - LABREL 2014

Documents

Transcript of LABREV - LABREL 2014