1 |Page DIGESTED CASES:

ASSOCIATED WORKERS UNION-PTGWO, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION NATURE: Multiple separate certiorari petitions- on a staggered and piecemeal basis FACTS: On 26 October 1984, petitioner Associated Workers Union ("AWU")PTGWO, the then bargaining representative of the dockworkers at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, filed a Notice of Strike against respondent Metro Port Service, Inc. ("Metro"), the then arrastre contractor in the South Harbor, on the issues, among others, of unfilled vacancies and union busting. MOLE- forbade the holding of strike and lock-outs and order NLRC for compulsory arbitration. In the latter case, one of the demands raised by AWU was that Metro terminate the employment of respondents Adriano Yumul and ten (10) others (individual respondents), for having organized, on 26 October 1984, the Associated Workers Union in Metroport ("AWUM") among the rank-and-file employees of Metro, ostensibly as a local or chapter of AWU. AWU had earlier expelled individual respondents from membership in AUW for disloyalty and, pursuant to the closedshop provision of the existing AWU-Metro collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"), sought the termination of their employment. Metro initially resisted AWU's request to terminate the employment of individual respondents, contending that the termination would be premature as individual respondents had not been afforded due process, and that the termination would be violative of the status quo agreement but later on because of the threat of strike by AWU made a compromise agreement to suspend the involved employees. LA- order to provisionally reinstate the individual respondents NLRC -directed Metro to comply with the Agreement, and Metro complied and resuspended individual respondents. Both AWU and Metro filed separate motions for reconsideration of the consolidated Decision. Meanwhile, on 21 July 1986, petitioner Marina Port Services, Inc. ("Marina"), by virtue of a Special Permit issued by the Philippine Ports Authority, started operations as the arrastre operator at the Manila South Harbor vice Metro. On November 1986, individual respondents in a Motion/Manifestation prayed that Marina be included as party-respondent as sanctioned by Par. "7" of the Special Permit granted to Marina which states that "Labor and personnel of previous operator, except those positions of trust and confidence, shall be absorbed by the grantee." NLRC rendered decision that Metro/Marina and AWU will be held solidarily liable with AWU except as to the time that respondent NLRC ordered it to re- suspend the private respondents and the case to be remanded to LA of origin for writ of execution. LA- issued MARINA to reinstate these individuals. ISSUES: 1) WON there was grave abuse of discretion when NLRC held that respondent Metro cannot be compelled to fill up vacancies? HELD: The existing CBA grants respondent Metro the right to compulsorily retire any member of AWU who had reached 60 years of age, which right has been exercised by Metro. 2) WON the expulsion made by AWU with these involved individuals is valid? HELD: YES. While it is true that AWUM as a local union, being an entity separate and distinct from AWU, is free to serve the interest of all its members and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right to disaffiliate may be exercised, and is thus considered a protected labor activity, only when warranted by circumstances. Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. 6 Even before the onset of the freedom period (and despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the mother union and management) disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such disaffiliation must be effected by a majority of the members in the bargaining unit. 7 This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union. In such

2 |Page
a case, however, the CBA continues to bind the members of the new or disaffiliated and independent union up to the CBA's expiration date. 8 The record does not show that individual respondents had disaffiliated during the freedom period. The record does, however, show that only eleven (11) members of AWU (individual respondents) had decided to disaffiliate from AWU and form AWUM. Respondent Metro had about 4,000 employees, and around 2,000 of these were members of AWU 9 It is evident that individual respondents had failed to muster the necessary majority in order to justify their disaffiliation. So the expulsion was justified and therefore valid. 3) WON METRO is liable to the suspended individuals? HELD: YES. By failure of Metro to accord individual respondents procedural due process by giving them reasonable opportunity to explain their side before suspending or dismissing them, such dismissal was accordingly in violation of the Labor Code. Notwithstanding AWU's closed-shop clause in the CBA, Metro was bound to conduct its own inquiry to determine the existence of substantial basis for terminating the employment of individual respondents. 4) WON MARINA should be compelled to recognize the legality of the organization and registration of AWUM (now MWU)? HELD: NO. What was in fact eventually established by individual respondents was a separate, independent union called Metro Port Workers Union (MWU) which was not entitled, during the time periods here relevant, to recognition as the bargaining unit in CBA negotiations. MWU cannot have its own organization because it is still within the prohibited period and not within the 60 FREEDOM DAY PERIOD and thus still bound by the CBA Agreement that has not expired yet. And with it they still cannot be recognized as the bargaining unit in CBA negotiation. ----------------------G.R. No. 149240 July 11, 2002 SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, FACTS: The workers social security fund the amount of P5,000.00 as contract signing bonus of each official and employee of the SSS. The gratuity emanated from the collective negotiation agreement (CNA) executed on 10 July 1996 between the Social Security Commission (SSC) in behalf of the SSS and the Alert and Concerned Employees for Better SSS (ACCESS), the sole and exclusive negotiating agent for employees of the SSS. To fund this undertaking, the SSC allocated P15,000,000.00 in the budgetary appropriation of the SSS. DBM- declared as illegal the contract signing bonus which the CAN EXECUTED BETWEEN SSS AND SSC COA - on appeal affirmed DBM Hence this instant petition

ISSUE: WON CNA made by herein SSS Access with SSC is valid ? HELD: The process of collective negotiations in the public sector does not encompass terms and conditions of employment requiring the appropriation of public funds Sec. 13. Terms and conditions of employment or improvements thereof, except those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees organizations and appropriate government authorities. 20 More particularly Sec. 3. Those that require appropriation of funds, such as the following, are not negotiable: (a) Increase in salary emoluments and other allowances not presently provided for by law; (b) Facilities requiring capital outlays; (c) Car plan; (d) Provident fund; (e) Special hospitalization, medical and dental services; (f) Rice/sugar/other subsidies; (g) Travel expenses; (h) Increase in retirement benefits. Sec. 4. Matters that involve the exercise of management prerogatives, such as the following, are likewise not subject to negotiation: (a) Appointment; (b) Promotion; (c) Assignment/Detail; (d) Reclassification/ upgrading of position; (e) Revision of compensation structure; (f) Penalties imposed as a result of disciplinary actions;

3 |Page
(g) Selection of personnel to attend seminar, trainings, study grants; (h) Distribution of work load; (I) External communication linkages. There must be a charter or law granting and authorizing the SSC to fix the compensation.

the passage of RA 6758 (1989) entitled "An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification in the Government and for other Purposes., no longer give such authority
In the case at bar, as its goal to "provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions." The law also repealed "[a]ll laws, decrees, executive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof, that exempt agencies from the coverage of the System, or that authorize and fix position classification, salaries, pay rates or allowances of specified positions, or groups of officials and employees or of agencies, which are inconsistent with the System, including the proviso under Section 2 and Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 985. Although this was already super ceded with RA 8282,( this law expressly exempted the SSS from the provisions of RA 6758 and RA 7430 (The Attrition Law of 1992) however this took effect only on March 23, 1997.It holds to reason that the prospective application of the statute renders irrelevant to the case at bar whatever effects this exemption may have on the power of the SSC to fix the compensation of SSS personnel. Ironically, RA 8282 in fact buttresses the ruling that the signing bonus cannot escape the provisions of RA 6758. The need to expressly stipulate the exemption of the SSS can only mean that prior to the effectivity of RA 8282, the SSS was subject to RA 6758 and even RA 7430.