Professional Documents
Culture Documents
xxx nevertheless, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to
the tenets of equity and fair play.
whether the termination of the union The factual backdrop of the termination of Ms. Ambas leads us to no other conclusion that she was
president amounts to an interference dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right of her co-workers at the
of the employees' right to self- bargaining table. [She] had been working for the petitioner for ten (10) years already. In fact, she was a
organization? recipient of a loyalty award. Moreover, for the past ten (10) years her working schedule was from Monday
to Friday. However, things began to change when she was elected as union president and when she
started negotiating for a new CBA.
When management refused to treat the charge of insubordination as a grievance within the scope of the
Grievance Machinery, the action of the College in finally dismissing her from the service became arbitrary,
capricious and whimsical, and therefore violated Ms. Ambas' right to due process
petitioner union should have requested or demanded that such promise or undertaking be incorporated in
the CBA. [Although] petitioner union's assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the same
proposal may have a factual basis considering the allegations in the aforementioned joint affidavit of its
members, Article 252 also states that the duty to bargain does not compel any party to agree to a
proposal or make any concession. Hence, petitioner union may not validly claim that the proposal
embodied in the Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it finally entered into with private
whether or not private respondent respondent.
committed an unfair labor practice in
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP
its refusal to grant across-the-board a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest.[13] It goes without saying,
FORM MANUFACTURING UNITED
wage increases in implementing however, that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with. Where a
WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02, proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA,[14] it is not a part thereof and the
(SMTFM-UWP), its officers and
proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation.
members, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
The mere fact that the proposal in question was not included in the CBA indicates that no contractual
HON. JOSE G. DE VERA and TOP
commitment thereon was ever made by private respondent as no agreement had been arrived at by the
FORM MANUFACTURING PHIL., INC.,
parties.
respondents.
the approval of the CBA and the release of signing bonus do not necessarily mean that the Union waived
its ULP claim against the Bank during the past negotiations. After all, the conclusion of the CBA was
whether or not the petitioner is
included in the order of the SOLE, while the signing bonus was included in the CBA itself. Moreover, the
estopped from filing the instant action.
Union twice filed a motion for reconsideration respecting its ULP charges against the Bank before the
SOLE.
The assailed agreement is clearly not the act of a tribunal, board, officer, or person exercising judicial,
Is an original action for certiorari and quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. xxx Instead, what exists is a contract between a private firm and
prohibition the proper remedy to annul one of its labor unions, albeit entered into with the assistance of the Task Force. The first and second
GERARDO F. RIVERA, ALFRED A. the PAL-PALEA agreement of requisites for certiorari and prohibition are therefore not present in this case. Hence, although the
RAMISO, AMBROCIO PALAD, DENNIS September 27, 1998 petitioners (PAL) asks for the perusal of facts which is not proper in the highest court, the case
R. ARANAS, DAVID SORIMA, JR., nonetheless pushed through as it is imbued with public interest (PAL is a national flag carrier)
JORGE P. DELA ROSA, and ISAGANI
ALDEA, petitioners, vs. HON.
EDGARDO ESPIRITU in his capacity as
Chairman of the PAL Inter-Agency Task The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a
Force created under Administrative climate of a sound and stable industrial peace. In the case at bar, the assailed PAL-PALEA agreement
Order No. 16; HON. BIENVENIDO was the result of voluntary collective bargaining negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial
LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary situation faced by the employer, with the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial
of Labor and Employment; PHILIPPINE peace at PAL, but preventing the latter's closure. It was PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent of
Is the PAL-PALEA agreement of
AIRLINES (PAL), LUCIO TAN, HENRY September 27, 1998, stipulating the PALs ground employees, that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It was also PALEA that
SO UY, ANTONIO V. OCAMPO, voluntarily opted for the 10-year suspension of the CBA.
suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA
MANOLO E. AQUINO, JAIME J. unconstitutional and contrary to public
BAUTISTA, and ALEXANDER O. The legal effect of a contract is not determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from all
policy?
BARRIENTOS, respondents. others, but from the whole read together.The aforesaid provisions, taken together, clearly show the intent
of the parties to maintain union security during the period of the suspension of the CBA. Its objective is to
assure the continued existence of PALEA during the said period. . It is State policy to promote unionism to
enable workers to negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more persuasiveness
than if they were to individually and separately bargain with the employer.
It is indisputable that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on
November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was
seeking said renegotiation within five (5) years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1,
1988. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. For
refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA,
finding GMC guilty of unfair labor
the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. GMC failed in its
practice for violating the duty to
duty under Article 252. What it did was to devise a flimsy excuse, by questioning the existence of the
bargain collectively and/or interfering
union and the status of its membership to prevent any negotiation.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, with the right of its employees to self-
petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF organization,
The CA likewise found that the letters between February to June 1993 by 13 union members signifying
APPEALS, GENERAL MILLING
their resignation from the union clearly indicated that GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The
CORPORATION INDEPENDENT
records show that GMC presented these letters to prove that the union no longer enjoyed the support of
LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), and RITO
the workers. We agree with the CAs conclusion that the ill-timed letters of resignation from the union
MANGUBAT, respondents.
members indicate that GMC had interfered with the right of its employees to self-organization.
By its acts, no less than its action which bespeak its insincerity, [the petitioner] has forfeited whatever
imposing upon GMC the draft CBA rights it could have asserted as an employer. But an erring party should not be allowed to resort with
proposed by the union for two years to impunity to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. Thus, by imposing on GMC
begin from the expiration of the the provisions of the draft CBA proposed by the union, in our view, the interests of equity and fair play
original CBA. were properly served and both parties regained equal footing, which was lost when GMC thwarted the
negotiations for new economic terms of the CBA.
petitioner erred in suspending collective bargaining negotiations with the union and in placing the union
funds in escrow considering that the intra-union dispute between the Aliazas and Bañez factions was not
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Petitioner, [can the petitioner be absolved
a justification.
vs. petitioner from respondent’s charge of
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY committing an unfair labor practice, or
Neither can petitioner seek refuge in its defense that as early as November 2003 it had already released
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA- specifically, a violation of Article
the escrowed union dues to respondent and normalized relations with the latter. The fact remains that
NAFTEU), Respondent. 248(g) in relation to Article 252 of the
from its receipt of the July 28, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-0015-2003 until its
Labor Code
receipt of the November 17, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-0033-2003, petitioner
failed in its duty to collectively bargain with respondent union without valid reason.
The trial court found that the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the Saulog
Transit, Inc. and the Buklod ñg Saulog Transit on 15 July 1953 (Exhibit 10; chan
roblesvirtualawlibraryAnnex D) “does not touch in substantial terms the rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment of all the employees in the company but seeks to
establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers, conductors and inspectors who are members of the
Buklod ñg Saulog..
BUKLOD ÑG SAULOG TRANSIT, whether or not an order of certification
The trial court took, however, into consideration the agreement and found that the first agreement being
Petitioner, vs. MARCIANO CASALLA, election shall issue on the basis of the
incomplete does not bar a certification election; and as to the supplementary agreement the Court held
ET ALS., Respondents. evidence established.
that it having been entered into after the filing of the petition for a certification election the same cannot
and does not bar a certification election.
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the collective bargaining agreement entered into on 15
July 1953 is no bar to a certification election at the instance of at least 10 per cent of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit, pursuant to section 12, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), Republic Act
No. 875.
To state outright that the parties intended the basic wage to remain invariable even after the advent of EO
178 is unfounded and presumptuous; a claim as such inevitably works to the utmost disadvantage of the
workers and runs counter to the constitutional guarantee of affording protection to labor.
MARCOPPER MINING what should be the basis for the
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. computation of the CBA increase, the Thus,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS basic wage without the COLA or the
COMMISSION and NATIONAL MINES so-called integrated basic wage [While] the principle that the CBA is the law between the contracting parties stands strong and true, there
AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION which, by mandate of E.O. No. 178, is no question [however] that as of 1 May 1987, as mandated by E.O. No. 178, the basic wage of workers,
(NAMAWU-MIF), respondents. includes the COLA. or the statutory minimum wage, was increased with the integration of the COLA. [This is] in the light of the
fact that compliance with the law is mandatory and beyond contractual stipulation by and between the
parties; consequently, whether or not petitioner intended the basic wage to include the COLA becomes
immaterial.