THE LAW ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

DUTY TO BARGAIN
(Art. 252, LC)

NO CBA

WITH CBA

(Art. 251, LC)

(Art. 253, LC)

Meaning of duty to bargain collectively

THE PERFORMANCE OF A MUTUAL OBLIGATION
TO MEET AND CONVENE PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY
IN GOOD FAITH
FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THE WAGES, HOURS OF WORK AND ALL
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
under

such

agreement

and

executing

contract

incorporating such agreements if requested by either party,

but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a
proposal or to make any concession. (ART. 252, LABOR
CODE).

When duty to bargain exists/begins

a)

In the absence of a CBA

it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives

of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with
the provisions of this Code. (Art. 251, Labor Code).
It is essential to the right of a putative bargaining agent to
represent the employees that it be the delegate of a
majority of the employees, and conversely, AN EMPLOYER IS
UNDER DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY ONLY WHEN THE
BARGAINING AGENT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MAJORITY
OF THE EMPLOYEES.

When duty to bargain exists/begins

b) With the existence of a CBA

Only during freedom period
Neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement
during its lifetime.
HOWEVER, EITHER PARTY CAN SERVE A WRITTEN NOTICE TO
TERMINATE OR MODIFY THE AGREEMENT AT LEAST SIXTY
(60) DAYS PRIOR TO ITS EXPIRATION DATE.
It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo
and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
parties. (Art. 253, Labor Code)

 As regards CBA about to expire, the law provides for an

AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE, e.g., that the terms and
conditions of the existing CBA shall continue to be in full
force and effect during the sixty-day freedom period or until
a new CBA is reached.

Thus, despite the lapse of the

effectivity of the old CBA, the law considers the same as

continuing in full force and effect until a new CBA is
executed. (Lopez Sugar vs. FFW, 30 Aug. 1990).
In both instances however, the duty to bargain collectively is
therefore an obligation of both the employer and the
employees/union.

Effect of refusal to bargain

 constitutes ULP under Art. 248 (g)

Furthermore, the unions draft

CBA

proposals

may

unilaterally be imposed upon the employer as the collective

bargaining agreement to govern their relationship.

When duty to bargain ceases

Upon actual loss of majority status of the bargaining
representative without fault of the employer; or

 Where a representation question or dispute has arisen in the

unit.

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION (GMC) vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU),
and RITO MANGUBAT; G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004, Quisimbing, J.:

FACTS:
A day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a
counter-proposal be submitted within ten (10) days.

 Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA due to the news that workers had
withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences,
GMC did not send any counter-proposal.
When the union protested and requested GMC to submit the matter to the grievance procedure
provided in the CBA. GMC, however, advised the union to "refer to our letter dated December 16,
1991. The letter stated that it felt there was no basis to negotiate with a union which no longer
existed, but that management was nonetheless always willing to dialogue with them on matters of
common concern and was open to suggestions on how the company may improve its operations.
Union filed a complaint against GMC with the NLRC alleging unfair labor practice on the part of the
GMC for its refusal to bargain collectively.

ISSUE:
Is GMC guilty of ULP for violating the duty to bargain collectively?

LAW:
Art. 248 in relation to Art. 252 of the Labor Code.
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit
any of the following unfair labor practice:
...
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
...

ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to bargain collectively means the
performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith
for the purpose of negotiating an agreement....

CASE HISTORY:
Labor Arbiter dismissed the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election be
held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers.
NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision. However, on GMCs MR, NLRC set aside its decision and
it found GMCs doubts as to the status of the union justified and the allegation of coercion exerted by
GMC on the unions members to resign unfounded.
CA, on Unions subsequent petition for certiorari, treated the refiled petition as a motion for
reconsideration and gave the petition due course. CA ruled in favor of the Union.

RULING:
Under Article 252, both parties are required to perform their mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. The union
lived up to this obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three (3) years
from the effectivity of the original CBA. But GMC failed in its duty under Article 252. What it did was
to devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the union and the status of its
membership to prevent any negotiation.
GMCs refusal to make a counter-proposal to the unions proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication
of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining
proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.

 Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, based on Kiok Loy and Divine Word
University of Tacloban, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and
conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union.

OPINION:
As strictly distinguished from the facts of this case, there was no pre-existing CBA between the

parties in Kiok Loy and Divine Word University of Tacloban. Nonetheless, it is deem proper to apply in
this case the rationale of the doctrine in the said two cases. To rule otherwise would be to allow GMC
to have its cake and eat it too.