LMG CHEMICALS CORP. v. SOLE P4,500 per month or P166 per day.

This is discrimination against he Union

(2001|Sandoval Gutierrez) members.

LMG Chemicals has two uions within the Inorganic Divison: the respondent Chemical
Workers Union representing the daily paid employees and the other represents the
monthly paid employees.
 LMG and Chemical Workers started negotiation for a new CBA as the old
was about the expire. No agreement was reached regarding economic
issues.
Deadlock. Respondent filed Notice of Strike and conciliation failed. LMG,
attempting to end the strike early, made an improved offer of P135 per day, spread over
the period of three years, as follows: P55 per day on the first year; P45 per day on
the second year; P35 per day on the third year.
 Rejected by the union
SOLE took cognizance since the labor dispute was impressed with national interest.
In its position paper, petitioner made a turn-around, stating that it could no longer
afford to grant its previous offer due to serious financial losses during the early
months of 1996. It then made the following offer: Zero increase in the first year, P30
per day increase in the second year; and P20 per day increase in the third year.
SOLE: based from the Companys last offer of P135, it be raised to P140 per day: P90
per day for the first 18 months, and P50 per day for the next 18 months.
 This is since supervisors had an annual increase of P4500 to their salary
thus there is no need to scrmpt on other employees’ salaries
 CBA retroact to January 1, 1996
Respondent appealed, imputed gad since: (1) wage increase ad no basis in fact or
law since LMG suffered losses in the first part of the year to P15M and suffered
substantial losses because of the strike and (2) under Art. 253-A of Labor Code,
SOLE only has discretion regarding the date of effectivity of the new CBA to either:
(1) leaving the matter of the date of effectivity of the new CBA to the agreement of the
parties or (2) ordering that the terms of the new CBA be prospectively applied.
HELD:
1. No gad. SOLE considered all the evidence and arguments and reasoned that
regardless of whether one division or another losses or gains in its yearly
operation is not material in reckoning a Companys financial status. In fact, the
loss in one is usually offset by the gains in the others. hen the Company made
the offer of P135 per day for the three year period, it was presumed to have
studied its financial condition properly, taking into consideration its past
performance and projected income. Besides, as a major player in the countrys
corporate field, reneging from a wage increase package it previously offered
and later on withdrawing the same simply because this Office had already
assumed jurisdiction over its labor dispute with the Union cannot be
sanctioned.
 However the Union’s demand for P215 a day cannot be sanctioned either
since the overload factors and costs will cripple the company excessively.
 Moreover, petitioner company granted its supervisory employees, during the
pendency of the negotiations between the parties, a wage increase of
2. No gad. SOLE assumed jurisdiction since it was impressed with national interest as
it is a supplier of MWSS and NAPOCOR, thus the strike would affect the water supply
of Metro Manila (MWSS) and power supply of Luzon.
The authority of the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national
interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom.
The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and
efficiently dispose of the primary dispute.
In St. Lukes Medical Center Inc. v. Torres the Court held that: “Finally, the effectivity
of the Order of January 28, 1991, must retroact to the date of the expiration of the
previous CBA, contrary to the position of the petitioner. Under the circumstances of
the case, Art. 253-A cannot be properly applied to herein case. As correctly stated by
public respondent in his assailed Order of April 12, 1991 -
Anent the alleged lack of basis for retroactivity provisions awarded, We would stress
that the provision of law invoked by the Hospital, Article 253-A of the
Labor Code, speaks of agreement by and between the parties,
and not arbitral awards.
Therefore in the absence of the specific provision of law prohibiting
retroactivity of the effectivity of the arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, such as herein involved,
public respondent is deemed vested with plenary powers to determine the
effectivity thereof.”
 It is a well established rule that interpretation of labor laws should be
resolved in favor of labor.
“Social Justice Legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers, must
not be hampered in its application by long winded-arbitration and litigation. Rights
must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience. Labor laws are
meant to promote, not to defeat, social justice.”
DENIED.