Lab Rel 3 cases feb

7/24/2019 Lab Rel 3 cases feb

1/39

G.R. No. 91902 May 20, 1991

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,petitioner,

vs.THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, STAFF AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF

MERALCO, and FIRST LINE ASSOCIATION OF MERALCO SUPERISORY EMPLOYEES,respondents.

Rolando R. Arbues, Atilano S. Guevarra, Jr. and Gil S. San Diego for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.Felipe Gojar for STEA!"#$F.

$a%a& ' $a%a& (egal Services for First (ine Association of eralco Supervisor& E)plo&ees.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This petition seeks to review the Resolution of respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. rilon dated !ovember ",#$%$ which affirmed an &rder of Med'(rbiter Renato ). )arun*o +ase !o. !R'&''M'#'-/, directin* the holdin* of a

certification election amon* certain employees of petitioner Manila Electric ompany +hereafter 0MER(L&0/ as well as the &rder

dated 1anuary #2, #$$ which denied the Motion for Reconsideration of MER(L&.

The facts are as follows3

&n !ovember 44, #$%%, the Staff and Technical Employees (ssociation of MER(L& +hereafter 0STE(M')5F0/ a laboror*ani6ation of staff and technical employees of MER(L&, filed a petition for certification election, seekin* to represent re*ularemployees of MER(L& who are3 +a/ non'mana*erial employees with )ay 7rades 899 and above: +b/ non'mana*erial employees in

the )atrol ivision, Treasury Security Services Section, Secretaries who are automatically removed from the bar*ainin* unit: and +c/

employees within the rank and file unit who are automatically dis;ualified from becomin* union members of any or*ani6ation withinthe same bar*ainin* unit.

(mon* others, the petition alle*ed that 0while there e( for the rank and file employees, #

there is no other labor or*ani6ation e


2/39

The petition was premised on the e


3/39

B. Le*al Service epartment

C. Labor Relations ivision

2. )ersonnel (dministration ivision

-. Manpower )lannin* D Research ivision

%. omputer Services epartment

$. Financial )lannin* D ontrol epartment

#. Treasury epartment, e


4/39

The petition for certification election will disturb the administration of the ear*ainin* (*reement inviolation of (rt. 4"4 of the Labor ode.

999

The petition itself shows that it is not supported by the written consent of at least twenty percent +4/ of the alle*ed 4,C

employees sou*ht to be represented. +Resolution, Sec. of Labor, pp. 44"'44B, Rollo/

>efore Med'(rbiter R. )arun*o, MER(L& contended that employees from )ay 7rades 899 and above are classified as mana*erialemployees who, under the law, are prohibited from formin*, oinin* or assistin* a labor or*ani6ation of the rank and file. (s re*ards

those in the )atrol ivision and Treasury Security Service Section, MER(L& maintains that since these employees are tasked with

providin* security to the company, they are not eli*ible to oin the rank and file bar*ainin* unit, pursuant to Sec. 4+c/, Rule 8, >ook 8of the then 9mplementin* Rules and Re*ulations of the Labor ode +#$%%/ which reads as follows3

Sec. 4. $ho )a& file petition. G The employer or any le*itimate labor or*ani6ation may file the petition.

The petition, when filed by a le*itimate labor or*ani6ation, shall contain, amon* others3

< < < < < < < < ook 8 of the implementin* rules of R( 2-#C3

Rule 8.RE)RESE!T(T9&! (SES (!

9!TER!(L'@!9&! &!FL9TS

Sec. #. . . .

Sec. 4. $ho )a& file.G(ny le*itimate labor or*ani6ation or the employer, when re;uested to bar*ain collectively, mayfile the petition.

The petition, when filed by a le*itimate labor'or*ani6ation shall contain, amon* others3

+a/ . . .

+b/ . . .

+c/ description of the bar*ainin* unit which shall be the employer unit unless circumstances otherwise re;uire: and provided further, that the appropriate bar*ainin* unit of the rank'and'file employees shall not include supervisory

employees and/or securit& guards:

< < < < < < < < oth rules, barrin* security *uards from oinin* a rank and file or*ani6ation, appear to have been carried over from the old rules whichimplemented then Art. 012of the Labor ode, and which provided thus3

(rt. 4BC.*neligibilit& of securit& personnel to join an& labor organi3ation.GSecurity *uards and other personnel employed forthe protection and security of the person, properties and premises of the employer shall not be eli*ible for membership in any

labor or*ani6ation.

&n ecember 4B, #$%2, )res. ora6on . (;uino issued E.&. !o. ### which eli)inatedthe above'cited provision on the

dis;ualification of security *uards. 5hat was retained was the dis;ualification of mana*erial employees, renumbered as (rt. 4BC+previously (rt. 4B2/, as follows3

(rt. 4BC.*neligibilit& of )anagerial e)plo&ees to joint an& labor organi3ation.GMana*erial employees are not eli*ible tooin, assist or form any labor or*ani6ation.

5ith the elimination, security *uards were thus free to oin a rank and file or*ani6ation.

&n March 4, #$%$, the present on*ress passed R( 2-#C. 4Section #% thereof amended (rt. 4BC, to read as follows3

(rt. 4BC. 9neli*ibility of )anagerial e)plo&eesto oin any labor or*ani6ation: ri*ht of supervisory employees.GMana*erial

employees are not eli*ible to oin, assist or form any labor or*ani6ation. Supervisor& e)plo&ees shall not be eligibleformembership in a labor or*ani6ation of the rank'and'file employees but may oin, assist, or form separate labor or*ani6ations of

their own. +emphasis ours/

(s will be noted, the second sentence of (rt. 4BC embodies an amendment dis;ualifyin*supervisor& e)plo&eesfrom membership in alabor or*ani6ation of the rank'and'file employees. 9t does not include securit& guardsin the dis;ualification.

The implementin* rules of R( 2-#C, therefore, insofar as they dis;ualify security *uards from oinin* a rank and file or*ani6ation are

null and void, for bein* not *ermane to the obect and purposes of E& ### and R( 2-#C upon which such rules purportedly derivestatutory moorin*s. 9n Shell "hilippines, *nc. vs. #entral 4an%, 7.R. !o. C#"C", 1une 4-, #$%%, #24 SR( 24%, 5e stated3

The rule'makin* power must be confined to details for re*ulatin* the mode or proceedin* to carry into effect the law as it hasbeen enacted. The power cannot be e


12/39

covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned. +citing@niversity of Sto. Tomas vs. >oard of Tay

accommodatin* supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor must likewise apply the provisions of R( 2-#C to security *uards byfavorably allowin* them free access to a labor or*ani6ation, whether rank and file or supervisory, in reco*nition of their constitutional

ri*ht to self'or*ani6ation.

5e are aware however of possible conse;uences in the implementation of the law in allowin* security personnel to oin labor unions

within the company they serve. The law is apt to produce divided loyalties in the faithful performance of their duties. Economicreasons would present the employees concerned with the temptation to subordinate their duties to the alle*iance they owe the union of

which they are members, aware as they are that it is usually union action that obtains for them increased pecuniary benefits.

Thus, in the event of a strike declared by their union, security personnel may ne*lect or outri*htly abandon their duties, such as

protection of property of their employer and the persons of its officials and employees, the control of access to the employer=s

premises, and the maintenance of order in the event of emer*encies and untoward incidents.

9t is hoped that the correspondin* amendatory and?or suppletory laws be passed by on*ress to avoid possible conflict of interest insecurity personnel.56phi5

(&R9!7LI, the petition is hereby 9SM9SSE. 5e (FF9RM with modification the Resolution of the Secretary of Labor dated!ovember ", #$%$ upholdin* an employee=s ri*ht to self'or*ani6ation. ( certification election is hereby ordered conducted amon*

supervisory employees of MER(L&, belon*in* to )ay 7rades 899 and above, usin* as *uideliness an employee=s power to eitherrecommend or e(, shall remain with the e


13/39

>y the parties= own a*reement, they find the bar*ainin* unit, which includes the positions enumerated in Section ", (rticle 9 oftheir >(, appropriate for purposes of collective bar*ainin*. The composition of the bar*ainin* unit should be left to the

a*reement of the parties, and unless there are le*al infirmities in such a*reement, this &ffice will not substitute its ud*ment for

that of the parties. onsistent with the story of collective bar*ainin* in the company, the membership of said *roup ofemployees in the e


14/39

PNO, J.:

Petitioner corporation and private respondent labor union entered into a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with expiry date on ovember !", #$$#. %uring the &reedom period theational 'ederation o& abor nions (A') *uestioned the ma+ority status o& Private respondent through a petition &or certi&ication election. he election conducted on 'ebruary !", #$$! waswon by private respondent. n arch #$, #$$!, private respondent was certi&ied as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent o& petitioner/s ran0-and-&ile employees.

n 1une !!, #$$!, private respondent/s CBA proposals were received by petitioner. Counter-proposals were made by petitioner. egotiations collapsed, and on August !2, #$$!, private-respondent &iled a otice o& 3tri0e with the ational Conciliation and ediation Board (CB). he CB tried but &ailed to settle the parties/ controversy.

n 3eptember 45, #$$!, public respondent 3ecretary o& abor assumed +urisdiction over the dispute. 3he resolved the bargaining deadloc0 between the parties through an rder, dated arch 2,#$$4, which reads, in part6

xxx xxx xxx

A. The non-economic issues

#. Scope/coverage of the CBA. Article 7 o& the #$88 CBA provides6

he Company recogni9es the nion as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative o& all the stevedores, doc0wor0ers, gang bosses,&oremen, ran0 and &ile employees wor0ing at Pier 8, orth :arbor and its o&&ices and said positions are ;sic< listed in A=> ?A? hereo&.

As such representative the 7 is designated as the collective bargaining agent with respect to and concerning the terms and conditions o&employment and the interpretations and implementation o& the provisions and conditions o& this Agreement.

Annex ?A? o& the CBA is the listing o& positions covered thereby. hese are6

#. 'oremen@!. ang bosses@

4. inchmen@2. 3ignalmen@. 3tevedores@D. %oc0wor0ers@". allymen@8. Chec0ers@$. 'or0li&t and crane operators@#5. 3weepers@##. echanics@#!. tilitymen@#4. Carpenters@ and#2. ther ran0 and &ile employees@

he company argues in the &irst instance that under Article !#!(m) in relation to Article !2 o& the abor Code, supervisors are ineligible &or. membership in a labororgani9ation o& ran0 and &ile. Being supervisors, &oremen should be excluded &rom the bargaining unit.


15/39

he Company li0ewise see0s the exclusion on the ground o& lac0 o& community o& interest and divergence in &unctions, mode o& compensation and wor0ing conditions o& the&ollowing6

#. Accounting cler0@!. Audit cler0@4. Collector@2. Payroll cler0@. urse@D. Chie& biller@". Biller@8. ellerEbiller@$. Personnel cler0@#5. ime0eeper@

##. Asst. time0eeper@#!. egal secretary@#4. elephone operator@#2. 1anitorEtility@ and#. Cler0

hese positions, the Company argues, cannot be lumped together with the stevedores or doc0wor0ers who mostly comprise the bargaining unit. 'urther, notwithstanding thechec0-o&& provisions o& the CBA, the incumbents in these positions have never paid union dues. 'inally, some o& them occupy con&idential positions and there&ore ought to beexcluded &rom the bargaining unit.

he nion generally argues that the Company/s proposed exclusions retrogressive. . . .

e see no compelling +usti&ication to order the modi&ication o& Article 7 o& the #$88 CBA as worded. 'or by lumping together stevedores and other ran0 and &ile employees, theobvious intent o& the parties was to treat all employees not dis*uali&ied &rom union membership as members o& one bargaining unit. his is regardless o& wor0ing conditions,mode o& compensation, place o& wor0, or other considerations. 7n the absence o& mutual agreement o& the parties or evidence that the present compositions o& the bargainingunit is detrimental to the individual and organi9ational rights either o& the employees or o& the Company, this expressed intent cannot be set aside.

7t may well be that as a conse*uence o& Fepublic Act o. D"#, &oremen are ineligible to +oin the union o& the ran0 and &ile. But this provision can be invo0ed only upon proo&that the &oremen sought to be excluded &rom the bargaining unit are cloa0ed with e&&ective recommendatory powers such as to *uali&y them under the legal de&initions o&supervisors.

xxx xxx xxx

". Effectivity of the CBA. he nion demands that the CBA should be &ully retroactive to !8 ovember #$$#. he Company is opposed on the ground that under Article !4-Ao& the labor code, the six-month period within which the parties must come to an agreement so that the same will be automatically retroactive is long past.

he nion/s demand &or &ull retroactivity, we note, will result in undue &inancial burden to the Company. n the other hand, the Company/s reliance on Article !4-A ismisplaced as this applies only to the renegotiated terms o& an existing CBA. :ere, the deadloc0 arose &rom negotiations &or a new CBA.

hese considered, the CBA shall be e&&ective &rom the time we assumed +urisdiction over the dispute, that is, on !! 3eptember #$$!, and shall remain e e&&ective &or &ive ()years therea&ter. 7t shall be understood that except &or the representation aspect all other provisions thereo& shall be renegotiated not later than three (4) years a&ter itse&&ectivity, consistently with Article !4-A o& the abor Code.

B. The economic issues


16/39

he comparative positions o& the parties are6

CPAG 7

xxx xxx xxx

. Hacation and sic0 leave #" days vacation and sic0 leave i) 'or al l covered employees

#" days sic0 leave per year and #" days sic0 than gang

&or employment with at least gang bosses6

&ive years o& service.

# wor0ing days vacation and# wor0ing days sic0 leave

&or those with at least # year

o& service

!5 wor0ing days vacation and

!5 wor0ing days sic0 leave

&or those with more than one

year o& service up to years

o& service

! wor0ing days vacation and

! wor0ing days sic0 leave

&or those with more than

years o& service up to #5

years o& service

45 wor0ing days vacation and

45 wor0ing days sic0 leave

&or those with more than #5

years o& service

Provided that in the case Provided that in the case o& a

o& a rotation wor0er, he rotation wor0er, he must have

must have wor0 &or at wor0ed &or #25 days in a


17/39

least #D5 days in a year calendar year as a condition

&or availment &or availment.

Provided, &urther that in the

event a rotation wor0er &ails

to complete #25 days wor0 in

a calendar year, he shall still

be entitled to vacation and

sic0 leave with pay, as &ollows6

#4$ - #!5 days wor0ed6 $5I

##$ - ##5 days wor0ed6 5I

ii) 'or ang bosses6

3ame as the above schedule

except that6

#) the condition that a gang

bosses must have wor0ed &or at

least #!5 days in a calendar

year shall be reduced to ##5

days@ and

!) where the above number o&

days wor0ed is not met, thegang boss shall still be entitled

to vacation and sic0 leave with

pay, as &ollows6

#5$ - $5 days wor0ed6 $5I

8$ - " days wor0ed6 5I

xxx xxx xxx

". %eath aid P#,55.55 to heirs P#5,555.55 to heirs o& covered

o& covered employees employees


18/39

P,555.55 assistance &or death

o& immediate member o&

covered employee/s &amily

xxx xxx xxx

#!. =mergency loan

a) amount o& P"55.55 but damage 45 days salary payable through

entitlement to dwelling by &ire shall payroll deduction in twelve

be included monthly installments

b) cash bond one he company shall put up a cash

&or loss, damage bond o& not less than P25,555.55

or accident &or winchmen, crane and &or0li&t

operators.

xxx xxx xxx

Balancing the right o& the Company to remain viable and to +ust returns to its investments with right o& the nion members to +ust rewards &or their labors, we &ind the &ollowingaward to be &air and reasonable6

xxx xxx xxx

D. Hacation and 3ic0 eave

a) on-rotation wor0ers #" days vacationE#" days sic0 leave

&or those with at least # year o& service

b) Fotation wor0ers other #" days vacationE#" days sic0 leave,

than gang boss provided that the covered wor0er

must have wor0ed &or at least # days

in a calendar year

c) ang bosses #" days vacationE#" days sic0 leave,


19/39

provided that the gang boss must have

wor0ed &or at least ## days in a

calendar year

xxx xxx xxx

8. %eath aid P4,555.55 to the heirs o& each covered employee

xxx xxx xxx

#!. =mergency loan 45 days pay, payable through payroll deductions o& #E#! o& monthly salary

:=F='F=, the Pier 8 Arrastre and 3tevedoring 3ervices and the eneral aritime 3ervices nion are hereby ordered to execute new collective bargaining agreementthe incorporating the dispositions herein contained. hese shall be in addition to all other existing terms, conditions and bene&its o& employment, except those speci&icallydeleted herein, which have previously governed the relations o& the parties. All other disputed items not speci&ically touched upon herein are deemed denied, withoutpre+udice to such other agreements as the parties may have reached in the meantime. he collective bargaining agreement so executed shall be e&&ective &rom !! 3eptember

#$$! and up to &ive years therea&ter, sub+ect to renegotiation on the third year o& its e&&ectivity pursuant to Article !4-A o& the abor Code.1

Petitioner sought partial reconsideration o& the rder. n 1une 8, #$$4, public respondent a&&irmed her &indings, except &or the date o& e&&ectivity o&the Collective Bargaining Agreement which was changed to 3eptember 45, #$$!. his is the date when she assumed +urisdiction over thedeadloc0.

Petitioner now assails the rder as &ollows6

7

:= :FAB= 3=CF=AFG ' ABF C7=% FAH= AB3= ' %73CF=7 7 =>C%7 C=FA7P3773 'F := BAFA77 AF=== 7

77

:= :FAB= 3=CF=AFG ' ABF C7=% FAH= AB3= ' %73CF=7 7 AJ7 := CBA=''=C7H= 3=P=B=F 45, #$$! := 3:= A33=% 1F73%7C7 H=F := ABF %73P= A% AFC: 2, #$$4 := 3:= F=%=F=% 1%= H=F := %73P=

777


20/39

:= :FAB= 3=CF=AFG ' ABF C7=% FAH= AB3= ' %73CF=7 7 F=%C7 := B=F '%AG3 A =PG== 3:% ACAG FJ B= =7=% HACA7 A% 37CJ =AH= B=='73

7H

:= :FAB= 3=CF=AFG ' ABF C7=% FAH= AB3= ' %73CF=7 7 7CF=A37 7:'ACA BA373 := %=A: A7% A% ==F=CG A

he petition is partially meritorious.

'irstly, petitioner *uestions public respondent &or not excluding &our (2) &oremen, a legal secretary, a time0eeper and an assistant time0eeper &romthe bargaining unit composed o& ran0-and-&ile employees represented by private respondent. Petitioner argues that6 (#) the &ailure o& privaterespondent to ob+ect when the &oremen and legal secretary were prohibited &rom voting in the certi&ication election constitutes an admission thatsuch employees holdsupervisoryEcon&idential positions@ and (!) the primary duty and responsibility o& the time0eeper and assistant time0eeper is ?to en&orce company rules and regulationsby reporting to petitioner . . . those wor0ers who committed in&ractions, such as those caught abandoning their posts.? and hence, they should not be considered as ran0-and-&ile employees.

he applicable law governing the proper composition o& bargaining unit is Article !2 o& the labor Code, as amended, which provides as &ollows6

Art. !2. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization@employees to join any labor organization@right of supervisory employees. K anagerialemployees are not eligible to +oin, assist or &orm any labor organi9ation. 3upervisory employees shall not be eligible &or membership in a labor organi9ation o& the ran0-and-&ile employees but may +oin, assist or &orm separate labor organi9ations o& their own.

Article !#!(m) o& the same Code, as well as Boo0 H, Fule #, 3ection #(o) o& the mnibus Fules 7mplementing the abor Code, as amended by the Fules and Fegulations 7mplementing F.A..D"#, di&&erentiate managerial, supervisory, and ran0-and-&ile employees, thus6

?anagerial =mployee? is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies andEor to hire, trans&er, suspend, layo&& recall,discharge, assign or discipline employees. 3upervisory employees are those who, in the interest o& the employer, e&&ectively recommend such managerial actions i& theexercise o& such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but re*uires the use o& independent +udgment. All employees not &alling within any o& the above

de&initions are considered ran0-and-&ile employees &or purposes o& the Boo0.

his Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the test o& supervisory or managerial status is whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest o& his employer which authority is

not merely routinary or clerical in nature but re*uires use o& independent +udgment.3hat governs the determination o& the nature o& employment is not the employee/s

title, but his +ob description. 7& the nature o& the employee/s +ob does not &all under the de&inition o& ?managerial? or ?supervisory? in the abor Code,he is eligible to be a member o& the ran0-and-&ile bargaining unit. 4

'oremen are chie& and o&ten especially-trained wor0men who wor0 with and commonly are in charge o& a group o& employees in an industrial plantor in construction wor0. 5hey are the persons designated by the employer-management to direct the wor0 o& employees and to superintend andoversee them. hey arerepresentatives o& the employer-management with authority over particular groups o& wor0ers, processes, operations, orsections o& a plant or an entire organi9ation. 7n the modern industrial plant, they are at once a lin0 in the chain o& command and the bridge betweenthe management and labor. 7n the per&ormance their wor0, &oremen de&initely use their independent +udgment and are empowered to ma0e


21/39

recommendations &or managerial action with respect to those employees under their control. 'oremen &all s*uarely under the category o&supervisory employees, and cannot be part o& ran0-and-&ile unions.

pon the other hand, legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. heir wor0 is basically routinary and clerical. :owever, they shouldbe di&&erentiated &rom ran0-and-&ile employees because they, are tas0ed with, among others, the typing o& legal documents, memoranda andcorrespondence, the 0eeping o& records and &iles, the giving o& and receiving notices and such other duties as re*uired by the legal personnel o&the corporation. 8egal secretaries there&ore &all under the category o& confiential employees. hus, to them applies our holding in the case o&!hilips Inustrial "evelopment# Inv.# v.$%&C, !#5 3CFA 44$ (#$$!), that6

. . . By the very &unctions, they assist con&idential capacity to, or have access to con&idential. matters o&, persons to, exercise

managerial &unctions in the &ield o& labor relations. As such, the rationale behind the ineligibility o& managerial employees to &orm,assist or +oin a labor union e*ually applies to them.

7nBulletin !ublishing Co.# Inc.# vs.'on.Augusto Sanchez# this Court elaborated on this rationale, thus6

. . . he rationale, &or this inhibition has been stated to be, because i& these managerial employees would belongto or be a&&iliated with nion the latter might not, be assured o& their loyalty to the nion in view o& evident con&licto& interests. he nion can also become company-dominated with the presence o& managerial employees innion membership.

7n (olen )arms# Inc.# vs.)errer-Calleja#9this court explicitly made this rationale applicable to con&idential employees6

his rationale holds true also &or con&idential employees . . ., who having access to con&idential in&ormation, maybecome the source o& undue advantage. 3aid employee(s) may act as a spy or spies o& either party to a collectivebargaining agreement. . . .

e thus hold that public respondent acted with grave abuse o& discretion in not excluding the &our &oremen and legal secretary &rom the bargainingunit composed o& ran0-and-&ile employees.

As &or the time0eeper and assistant time0eeper it is clear &rom petitioner/s own pleadings that they are, neither managerial nor supervisoryemployees. hey are merely tas0ed to report those who commit in&ractions against company rules and regulations. his reportorial &unction isroutinary and clerical. hey do not determine the &ate o& those who violate company policy rules and regulations &unction. 7t &ollows that theycannot be excluded &rom the sub+ect bargaining unit.

he next issue is the date when the new CBA o& the parties should be given e&&ect. Public respondent &ixed the e&&ectivity date on 3eptember 45,#$$!. when she assumed +urisdiction over the dispute. Petitioner maintains it should be arch 2. #$$4, when public respondent rendered

+udgment over the dispute.


22/39

he applicable laws are Articles !4 and !4- A o& the abor Code, thus6

Art. !4. "uty to bargain collectively *hen there e+ists a collective bargaining agreement. K hen there is a collective bargainingagreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modi&y such agreement during itsli&etime. :owever, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modi&y the agreement at least sixty (D5) days prior to itsexpiration date. 7t shall be the duty o& both parties to 0eep the status ,uo and to continue in &ull &orce and e&&ect the terms andconditions o& the existing agreement during the D5-day period andEor until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

and@

Art. !4-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. KAny Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter intoshall, inso&ar as the representation aspect is concerned, be &or a term o& &ive () years. o petition *uestioning the ma+ority statuso& the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certi&ication election shall be conducted by the %epartment o& aborand =mployment outside the sixty-day period immediately be&ore the date o& expiry o& such &ive year term o& the CollectiveBargaining Agreement. All other provisions o& the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (4)years a&ter its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions o& the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six(D) months &rom the date o& expiry o& the term o& such other provisions as &ixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shallretroact to the day immediately &ollowing such date. 7& any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shallagree on the duration o& collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code.

7n nion of )ilipino Employees v.$%&C, #$! 3CFA 2#2 (#$$5), this court interpreted the above law as &ollows6

7n light o& the &oregoing, this Court upholds the pronouncement o& the FC holding the CBA to be signed by the parties e&&ectiveupon the promulgation o& the assailed resolution. 7t is clear and explicit &rom Article !4-A that any agreement on such otherprovisions o& the CBA shall be given retroactive e&&ect only when it is entered into within six (D) months &rom its expiry date. 7& theagreement was entered into outside the six (D) month period, then the parties shall agree on the duration o& the retroactivity

thereo&.

he assailed resolution which incorporated the CBA to be signed by the parties was promulgated 1une , #$8$, the expiry date o&the past CBA. Based on the provision o& 3ection !4-A, its retroactivity should be agreed upon. by the parties. But since noagreement to that e&&ect was made, public respondent did not abuse its discretion in giving the said CBA a prospective e&&ect. heaction o& the public respondent is within the ambit o& its authority vested by existing law.

7n the case o& %opez Sugar Corporation v.)eeration of )ree .orers# #8$ 3CFA #"$ (#$$#), this Court reiterated the rule that although a CBAhas expired, it continues to have legal e&&ects as between the parties until a new CBA has been entered into. 7t is the duty o& both parties to the to0eep the status ,uo, and to continue in &ull &orce and e&&ect the terms and conditions o& the existing agreement during the D5-day &reedom periodandEor until a new agreement is reached by the parties. 10Applied to the case at bench, the legal e&&ects o& the immediate past CBA betweenpetitioner and private respondent terminated, and the e&&ectivity o& the new CBA began, only on arch 2, #$$4 when public respondent resolvedtheir dispute.


23/39

'inally, we &ind no need to discuss at length the merits o& the third and &ourth assignments o& error. he *uestioned rder relevantly states6

7n the resolution o& the economic issues, the Company urges us to consider among others, present costs o& living, its & inancialcapacity, the present wages being paid by the other cargo handlers at the orth :arbor, and the &act that the present averagewage o& its wor0ers is P#!"." a day, which is higher than the statutory minimum wage o& P##8.55 a day. he Company/sevidence, consisting o& its &inancial statements &or the past three years, shows that its net income was P"24,2!4.2 &or #$8$,P!,#58,D$.54 &or #$$5, and P#,2"$,D"#.82 &or #$$#, or an average o& P#,224,88.#5 over the three-year period. 7t argues that&or +ust the &irst year o& e&&ectivity o& the CBA, the Company/s proposals on wages, e&&ect thereo& on overtime, #4th month pay, andvacation and sic0 leave commutation, will cost about P!5,"!4,22, or 4.#$I o& its net income &or #$$#. he Company li0ewiseurges us to consider the multiplier e&&ect o& its proposals on the second and third years o& the CBA. As additional argument, the

Company mani&ests that a portion o& its pier will undergo a six-month to one-year renovation starting 1anuary #$$4.

n the other hand, the nion/s main line o& argument K that is, aside &rom being within the &inancial capacity o& the Company togrant, its demands are &air and reasonable K is not supported by evidence controverting the Company/s own presentation o& its&inancial capacity. he nion in &act uses statements o& the Company &or #$8$-#$$#, although it interprets these data as su&&icient

+usti&ication &or its own proposals. 7t also draws our attention to the bargaining history o& the parties, particularly the #$88negotiations during which the company was able to grant wage increases despite operational losses.

Balancing the right o& the Company to remain viable and to +ust returns to its investments with right o& the nion members to +ustrewards &or their labors, we &ind the &ollowing award to be &air and reasonable . . . . 11

7t is evident that the above portion o& the impugned rder is based on well-studied evidence. he conclusions reached by public respondent in thedischarge o& her statutory duty as compulsory arbitrator, demand the high respect o& this Court. he study and settlement o& these disputes &allwithin public respondent/s distinct administrative expertise. 3he is especially trained &or this delicate tas0, and she has within her cogni9ance suchdata and in&ormation as will assist her in stri0ing the e*uitable balance between the needs o& management, labor and the public. nless there isclear showing o& grave abuse o& discretion, this Court cannot and will not inter&ere with the labor expertise o& public respondent 3ecretary o& abor.

7 H7= :=F=', public respondents rder, dated arch 2, #$$4, and Fesolution, dated 1une 8, #$$4, are hereby %7'7=% to exclude&oremen and legal secretaries &rom the ran0-and-&ile bargaining unit represented by private respondent union, and to &ix the date o& e&&ectivity o&the &ive-year collective bargaining agreement between petitioner corporation and private respondent union on arch 2, #$$4. o costs.

3 F%=F=%.


24/39

G.R. No. L!"#$$# %an&a'y 22, 19()

*IO* LOY, do+n -&+n/ &nd/' / na/ and y3/ S4EDEN ICE CREAM PLANT, petitioner,vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 5NLRC6 and PAMBANSANG *ILUSAN NG PAGGA4A 5*ILUSAN6,

respondents.

Ablan and Associates for petitioner.


25/39

Abdulcadir T. *brahi) for private respondent.

CUEAS, J.:

)etition for certiorari to annul the decision 1o& the ational abor Felations Commission (FC) dated 1uly !5, #$"$ which &ound petitioner3weden 7ce Cream guilty o& un&air labor practice &or un+usti&ied re&usal to bargain, in violation o& par. (g) o& Article !2$ o& the ew abor Code, 3and declared the dra&t proposal o& the nion &or a collective bargaining agreement as the governing collective bargaining agreement between the

employees and the management.

he pertinent bac0ground &acts are as &ollows6

7n a certi&ication election held on ctober 4, #$"8, the Pambansang Jilusang Paggawa (nion &or short), a legitimate late labor &ederation, wonand was subse*uently certi&ied in a resolution dated ovember !$, #$"8 by the Bureau o& abor Felations as the sole and exclusive bargainingagent o& the ran0-and-&ile employees o& 3weden 7ce Cream Plant (Company &or short). he Company/s motion &or reconsideration o& the saidresolution was denied on 1anuary !, #$"8.

herea&ter, and more speci&ically on %ecember ", #$"8, the nion &urnished 4the Company with two copies o& its proposed collective bargainingagreement. At the same time, it re*uested the Company &or its counter proposals. =liciting no response to the a&oresaid re*uest, the nion againwrote the Company reiterating its re*uest &or collective bargaining negotiations and &or the Company to &urnish them with its counter proposals.Both re*uests were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company.

e&t with no other alternative in its attempt to bring the Company to the bargaining table, the nion, on 'ebruary #2, #$"$, &iled a ?otice o& 3tri0e?,with the Bureau o& abor Felations (BF) on ground o& unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining. 5

Conciliation proceedings then &ollowed during the thirty-day statutory cooling-o&& period. But all attempts towards an amicable settlement &ailed,prompting the Bureau o& abor Felations to certi&y the case to the ational abor Felations Commission (FC) &or compulsory arbitrationpursuant to Presidential %ecree o. 8!4, as amended. he labor arbiter, Andres 'idelino, to whom the case was assigned, set the initial hearing&or April !$, #$"$. 'or &ailure however, o& the parties to submit their respective position papers as re*uired, the said hearing was cancelled andreset to another date. eanwhile, the nion submitted its position paper. he Company did not, and instead re*uested &or a resetting which wasgranted. he Company was directed anew to submit its &inancial statements &or the years #$"D, #$"", and #$"8.

he case was &urther reset to ay ##, #$"$ due to the withdrawal o& the Company/s counsel o& record, Atty. Fodol&o dela Cru9. n ay !2, #$"8,Atty. 'ortunato Panganiban &ormally entered his appearance as counsel &or the Company only to re*uest &or another postponement allegedly &orthe purpose o& ac*uainting himsel& with the case. eanwhile, the Company submitted its position paper on ay !8, #$"$.


26/39

hen the case was called &or hearing on 1une 2, #$"$ as scheduled, the Company/s representative, r. Ching, who was supposed to beexamined, &ailed to appear. Atty. Panganiban then re*uested &or another postponement which the labor arbiter denied. :e also ruled that theCompany has waived its right to present &urther evidence and, there&ore, considered the case submitted &or resolution.

n 1uly #8, #$"$, labor arbiter Andres 'idelino submitted its report to the ational abor Felations Commission. n 1uly !5, #$"$, the ationalabor Felations Commission rendered its decision, the dispositive portion o& which reads as &ollows6

:=F='F=, the respondent 3weden 7ce Cream is hereby declared guilty o& un+usti&ied re&usal to bargain, in violation o& 3ection(g) Article !28 (now Article !2$), o& P.%. 22!, as amended. 'urther, the dra&t proposal &or a collective bargaining agreement (=xh.?= ?) hereto attached and made an integral part o& this decision, sent by the nion (Private respondent) to the respondent

(petitioner herein) and which is hereby &ound to be reasonable under the premises, is hereby declared to be the collectiveagreement which should govern the relationship between the parties herein.

3 F%=F=%. (=mphasis supplied)

Petitioner now comes be&ore s assailing the a&oresaid decision contending that the ational abor Felations Commission acted without or inexcess o& its +urisdiction or with grave abuse o& discretion amounting to lac0 o& +urisdiction in rendering the challenged decision. n August 2, #$85,this Court dismissed the petition &or lac0 o& merit. pon motion o& the petitioner, however, the Fesolution o& dismissal was reconsidered and thepetition was given due course in a Fesolution dated April #, #$8#.

Petitioner Company now maintains that its right to procedural due process has been violated when it was precluded &rom presenting &urtherevidence in support o& its stand and when its re*uest &or &urther postponement was denied. Petitioner &urther contends that the ational aborFelations Commission/s &inding o& un&air labor practice &or re&usal to bargain is not supported by law and the evidence considering that it was onlyon ay !2, #$"$ when the nion &urnished them with a copy o& the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement and it was only then that they cameto 0now o& the nion/s demands@ and &inally, that the Collective Bargaining Agreement approved and adopted by the ational abor FelationsCommission is unreasonable and lac0s legal basis.

he petition lac0s merit. Conse*uently, its dismissal is in order.

Collective bargaining which is de&ined as negotiations towards a collective agreement, is one o& the democratic &ramewor0s under the ew aborCode, designed to stabili9e the relation between labor and management and to create a climate o& sound and stable industrial peace. 7t is a mutualresponsibility o& the employer and the nion and is characteri9ed as a legal obligation. 3o much so that Article !2$, par. (g) o& the abor Codema0es it an un&air labor practice &or an employer to re&use ?to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good &aith &or the purpose o&negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours o& wor0, and all other terms and conditions o& employment including proposals &or ad+ustingany grievance or *uestion arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement, i& re*uested by either party.

hile it is a mutual obligation o& the parties to bargain, the employer, however, is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation.hemechanics o& collective bargaining is set in motion only when the &ollowing +urisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (#) possession o& the


27/39

status o& ma+ority representation o& the employees/ representative in accordance with any o& the means o& selection or designation provided &or bythe abor Code@ (!) proo& o& ma+ority representation@ and (4) a demand to bargain under Article !#, par. (a) o& the ew abor Code . ... all o&which preconditions are undisputedly present in the instant case.

'rom the over-all conduct o& petitioner company in relation to the tas0 o& negotiation, there can be no doubt that the nion has a valid cause tocomplain against its (Company/s) attitude, the totality o& which is indicative o& the latter/s disregard o&, and &ailure to live up to, what is en+oined bythe abor Code K to bargain in good &aith.

e are in total con&ormity with respondent FC/s pronouncement that petitioner Company is 7G o& un&air labor practice. 7t has beenindubitably established that (#) respondent nion was a duly certi&ied bargaining agent@ (!) it made a de&inite re*uest to bargain, accompanied with

a copy o& the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement, to the Company not only once but twice which were le&t unanswered and unacted upon@and (4) the Company made no counter proposal whatsoever all o& which conclusively indicate lac0 o& a sincere desire to negotiate. 8A Company/sre&usal to ma0e counter proposal i& considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad &aith and this is specially true wherethe nion/s re*uest &or a counter proposal is le&t unanswered. 9=ven during the period o& compulsory arbitration be&ore the FC, petitionerCompany/s approach and attitude-stalling the negotiation by a series o& postponements, non-appearance at the hearing conducted, and unduedelay in submitting its &inancial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with thenion. Petitioner has not at any instance, evinced good &aith or willingness to discuss &reely and &ully the claims and demands set &orth by thenion much less +usti&y its opposition thereto. 10

he case at bar is not a case o& &irst impression, &or in the 'eral "elivery Carriers nion 0!A)%1 vs2 'eral !ublications 11the rule had been laiddown that ?un&air labor practice is committed when it is shown that the respondent employer, a&ter having been served with a written bargainingproposal by the petitioning nion, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal his doctrine was reiterated anew in Braman vs2 Court of Inustrial &elations 1wherein it was &urther ruled that ?while the law does not compel the parties to reach an agreement, itdoes contemplate that both parties will approach the negotiation with an open mind and ma0e a reasonable e&&ort to reach a common ground o&agreement

As a last-ditch attempt to e&&ect a reversal o& the decision sought to be reviewed, petitioner capitali9es on the issue o& due process claiming, that itwas denied the right to be heard and present its side when the abor Arbiter denied the Company/s motion &or &urther postponement.

Petitioner/s a&oresaid submittal &ailed to impress s. Considering the various postponements granted in its behal&, the claimed denial o& dueprocess appeared totally bere&t o& any legal and &actual support. As herein earlier stated, petitioner had not even honored respondent nion withany reply to the latter/s successive letters, all geared towards bringing the Company to the bargaining table. 7t did not even bother to &urnish orserve the nion with its counter proposal despite persistent re*uests made there&or. Certainly, the moves and overall behavior o& petitioner-company were in total derogation o& the policy enshrined in the ew abor Code which is aimed towards expediting settlement o& economicdisputes. :ence, this Court is not prepared to a&&ix its imprimatur to such an illegal scheme and dubious maneuvers.

either are = persuaded by petitioner-company/s stand that the Collective Bargaining Agreement which was approved and adopted by theFC is a total nullity &or it lac0s the company/s consent, much less its argument that once the Collective Bargaining Agreement is implemented,the Company will &ace the prospect o& closing down because it has to pay a staggering amount o& economic bene&its to the nion that will e*ual i&


28/39

not exceed its capital. 3uch a stand and the evidence in support thereo& should have been presented be&ore the abor Arbiter which is the proper&orum &or the purpose.

e agree with the pronouncement that it is not obligatory upon either side o& a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposalso& the other. But an erring party should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes &eigning negotiations by going throughempty gestures.13ore so, as in the instant case, where the intervention o& the ational abor Felations Commission was properly sought &ora&ter conciliation e&&orts underta0en by the BF &ailed. he instant case being a certi&ied one, it must be resolved by the FC pursuant to themandate o& P.%. 8"4, as amended, which authori9es the said body to determine the reasonableness o& the terms and conditions o& employmentembodied in any Collective Bargaining Agreement. o that extent, utmost de&erence to its &indings o& reasonableness o& any Collective Bargaining

Agreement as the governing agreement by the employees and management must be accorded due respect by this Court.

:=F='F=, the instant petition is %73733=%. he temporary restraining order issued on August !", #$85, is 7'=% and 3= A37%=.

o pronouncement as to costs.

3 F%=F=%.


29/39

S(M(A(!7 M(!77(7(5( S( T&) F&RM M(!@F(T@R9!7 @!9TE 5&RJERS &F TAE )A9L9))9!ES +SMTFM'@5)/, its officers and members,petitioners, vs. !(T9&!(L L(>&R REL(T9&!S &MM9SS9&!, A&!. 1&SE 7. E 8ER( and

T&) F&RM M(!@F(T@R9!7 )A9L., 9!., respondents.

E 9 S 9 & !

R&MER&,J.3

The issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not an employer committed an unfair labor practice by bar*ainin* in bad faith anddiscriminatin* a*ainst its employees. The char*e arose from the employers refusal to *rant across'the'board increases to its employees

in implementin* 5a*e &rders !os. # and 4 of the Re*ional Tripartite 5a*es and )roductivity >oard of the !ational apital Re*ion

+RT5)>'!R/. Such refusal was a**ravated by the fact that prior to the issuance of said wa*e orders, the employer alle*edlypromised at the collective bar*ainin* conferences to implement any *overnment'mandated wa*e increases on an across'the'board

basis.

)etitioner Samahan* Man**a*awa sa Top Form Manufacturin* @nited 5orkers of the )hilippines +SMTFM/ was the certified

collective bar*ainin* representative of all re*ular rank and file employees of private respondent Top Form Manufacturin* )hilippines,9nc. (t the collective bar*ainin* ne*otiation held at the Milky 5ay Restaurant in Makati, Metro Manila on February 4-, #$$, the

parties a*reed to discuss unresolved economic issues. (ccordin* to the minutes of the meetin*, (rticle 899 of the collective bar*ainin*a*reement was discussed. The followin* appear in said Minutes3

(RT9LE 899. 5a*es

Section #. efer

Section 4. Status ;uo

Section ". @nion proposed that any future wa*e increase *iven by the *overnment should be implemented by the company across'the'board or non'conditional.

Mana*ement re;uested the union to retain this provision since their sincerity was already proven when the )4C. wa*e increase was*ranted across'the'board. The union acknowled*es mana*ements sincerity but they are worried that in case there is a new set of

mana*ement, they can ust show their >(. The union decided to defer this provision. iK#


30/39

9n their oint affidavit dated 1anuary ", #$$4, iiK4union members Salve L. >arnes, Eulisa Mendo6a, Lourdes >arbero and oncesa9bae6 affirmed that at the subse;uent collective bar*ainin* ne*otiations, the union insisted on the incorporation in the collective

bar*ainin* a*reement +>(/ of the union proposal on automatic across'the'board wa*e increase. They added that3

##. &n the stren*th of the representation of the ne*otiatin* panel of the company and the above undertakin*?promise made by its

ne*otiatin* panel, our union a*reed to drop said proposal relyin* on the undertakin*s made by the officials of the company whone*otiated with us, namely, Mr. 5illiam Reynolds, Mr. Samuel 5on* and Mrs. Remedios Feli6ardo. (lso, in the past years, the

company has *ranted to us *overnment mandated wa*e increases on across'the'board basis.

&n &ctober #C, #$$, the RT5)>'!R issued 5a*e &rder !o. # *rantin* an increase of )#-. per day in the salary of workers.

This was followed by 5a*e &rder !o. 4 dated ecember 4, #$$ providin* for a )#4. daily increase in salary.

(s e( on the stren*th of private respondents promise and assurance of anacross'the'board salary increase should the *overnment mandate salary increases. ivKBSeveral conferences between the parties

notwithstandin*, private respondent adamantly maintained its position on the salary increases it had *ranted that were purportedlydesi*ned to avoid wa*e distortion.

onse;uently, the union filed a complaint with the !R !LR alle*in* that private respondents act of rene*in* on itsundertakin*?promise clearly constitutes an act of unfair labor practice throu*h bar*ainin* in bad faith. 9t char*ed private respondent

with acts of unfair labor practices or violation of (rticle 4B- of the Labor ode, as amended, specifically bar*ainin* in bad faith, andprayed that it be awarded actual, moral and e


31/39

)rivate respondent, on the other hand, contended that in implementin* 5a*e &rders !os. # and 4, it had avoided the e( that reflects the parties intention to fully set forth therein all theira*reements that had been arrived at after ne*otiations that *ave the parties unlimited ri*ht and opportunity to make demands and

proposals with respect to any subect or matter not removed by law from the area of collective bar*ainin*. The same >( providedthat durin* its effectivity, the parties each voluntarily and un;ualifiedly waives the ri*ht, and each a*rees that the other shall not be

obli*ated, to bar*ain collectively, with respect to any subect or matter not specifically referred to or covered by this (*reement, even

thou*h such subect or matter may not have been within the knowled*e or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the timethey ne*otiated or si*ned this (*reement.viiK-

&n March ##, #$$4, Labor (rbiter 1ose 7. de 8era rendered a decision dismissin* the complaint for lack of merit. viiiK%Ae consideredtwo main issues in the case3 +a/ whether or not respondents are *uilty of unfair labor practice, and +b/ whether or not the respondents

are liable to implement 5a*e &rders !os. # and 4 on an across'the'board basis. Findin* no basis to rule in the affirmative on bothissues, he e


32/39

The alle*ed violation of (rticle # of the Labor ode, as amended, as well as (rticle H899, Section - of the e( as hereinearlier ;uoted is likewise found by this >ranch to have no basis in fact and in law. !o benefits or privile*es previously enoyed by the

employees were withdrawn as a result of the implementation of the subect orders. Likewise, the alle*ed company practice of

implementin* wa*e increases declared by the *overnment on an across'the'board basis has not been duly established by thecomplainants evidence. The complainants asserted that the company implemented Republic (ct !o. 2-4- which *ranted a wa*e

increase of )4C. effective 1uly #, #$%$ on an across'the'board basis. 7rantin* that the same is true, such isolated sin*le act thatrespondents adopted would definitely not ripen into a company practice. 9t has been said that a sparrow or two returnin* to apistrano

does not a summer make.

Finally, on the second issue of whether or not the employees of the respondents are entitled to an across'the'board wa*e increase

pursuant to 5a*e &rders !os. # and 4, in the face of the above discussion as well as our findin* that the respondents correctlyapplied the law on wa*e increases, this >ranch rules in the ne*ative.

Likewise, for want of factual basis and under the circumstances where our findin*s above are adverse to the complainants, their prayerfor moral and e


33/39

''

TAE )@>L9 RES)&!E!TS SER9&@SLI ERRE 9! !&T F9!9!7 TAE )R98(TE RES)&!E!TS 7@9LTI

&F A(89!7 89&L(TE SET9&! B, (RT9LE H899 &F TAE EH9ST9!7 >(.

''

TAE )@>L9 RES)&!E!TS 7R(8ELI ERRE 9! !&T EL(R9!7 TAE )R98(TE RES)&!E!TS

7@9LTI &F A(89!7 89&L(TE (RT9LE # &F TAE L(>&R &E &F TAE )A9L9))9!ES, (S (ME!E.

'E'

(SS@M9!7, 59TA&@T (M9TT9!7 TA(T TAE )@>L9 RES)&!E!TS A(8E &RRETLI R@LE TA(T

TAE )R98(TE RES)&!E!TS (RE 7@9LTI &F (TS &F @!F(9R L(>&R )R(T9ES, TAEI &MM9TTE

SER9&@S ERR&R 9! !&T F9!9!7 TA(T TAERE 9S ( S97!9F9(!T 9ST&RT9&! 9! TAE 5(7ESTR@T@RE &F TAE RES)&!E!T &M)(!I.

'F'

TAE )@>L9 RES)&!E!TS ERRE 9! !&T (5(R9!7 T& TAE )ET9T9&!ERS AERE9! (T@(L,M&R(L, (! EHEM)L(RI (M(7ES (! (TT&R!EIS FEES.

(s the ourt sees it, the pivotal issues in this petition can be reduced into two, to wit3 +a/ whether or not private respondent committed

an unfair labor practice in its refusal to *rant across'the'board wa*e increases in implementin* 5a*e &rders !os. # and 4, and +b/whether or not there was a si*nificant wa*e distortion of the wa*e structure in private respondent as a result of the manner by whichsaid wa*e orders were implemented.

5ith respect to the first issue, petitioner union anchors its ar*uments on the alle*ed commitment of private respondent to *rant anautomatic across'the'board wa*e increase in the event that a statutory or le*islated wa*e increase is promul*ated. 9t cites as basis

therefor, the afore;uoted portion of the Minutes of the collective bar*ainin* ne*otiation on February 4-, #$$ re*ardin* wa*es,

ar*uin* additionally that said Minutes forms part of the entire a*reement between the parties.


34/39

The basic premise of this ar*ument is definitely untenable. To start with, if there was indeed a promise or undertakin* on the part ofprivate respondent to obli*ate itself to *rant an automatic across'the'board wa*e increase, petitioner union should have re;uested or

demanded that such promise or undertakin* be incorporated in the >(. (fter all, petitioner union has the means under the law to

compel private respondent to incorporate this specific economic proposal in the >(. 9t could have invoked (rticle 4C4 of the Laborode definin* duty to bar*ain, thus, the duty includes e( that it finally entered into with private respondent.

The >( is the law between the contractin* parties(. >ecause the proposal was never embodied in the >(, the promise has remained ust that, a promise, the implementationof which cannot be validly demanded under the law.


35/39

)etitioners reliance on this ourts pronouncements


36/39

subects of collective bar*ainin*: and it is no answer to the char*e of refusal to bar*ain in *ood faith that the insistence on the disputedclause was not the sole cause of the failure to a*ree or that a*reement was not reached with respect to other disputed clauses.0 ( had been entered into. 9ndeed, from the

facts of this case, the char*e of bad faith bar*ainin* on the part of private respondent was nothin* but a belated reaction to the

implementation of the wa*e orders that private respondent made in accordance with law. 9n other words, petitioner union harbored thenotion that its members and the other employees could have had a better deal in terms of wa*e increases had it relentlessly pursued the

incorporation in the >( of its proposal. The inevitable conclusion is that private respondent did not commit the unfair labor practicesof bar*ainin* in bad faith and discriminatin* a*ainst its employees for implementin* the wa*e orders pursuant to law.

The ourt likewise finds unmeritorious petitioner unions contention that by its failure to *rant across'the'board wa*e increases,private respondent violated the provisions of Section C, (rticle 899 of the e(ook shall

be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits bein* enoyed at the time of promul*ationof this ode.

5e a*ree with the Labor (rbiter and the !LR that no benefits or privile*es previously enoyed by petitioner union and the other

employees were withdrawn as a result of the manner by which private respondent implemented the wa*e orders. 7ranted that private

respondent had *ranted an across'the'board increase pursuant to Republic (ct !o. 2-4-, that sin*le instance may not be considered anestablished company practice. )etitioner unions ar*ument in this re*ard is actually tied up with its claim that the implementation of

5a*e &rders !os. # and 4 by private respondent resulted in wa*e distortion.

The issue of whether or not a wa*e distortion e


37/39

The issue of whether or not a wa*e distortion e


38/39


39/39

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

Documents

Lab Rel 3 cases feb