SCA Hygiene is a domestic corporation which manufactures and sells industrial paper, tissue and the like. It had an existing CBA with 2 unions: the monthly employees union and the petitioner Daily Employees Union. The 2 unions submitted their grievance for mediation but failed to reach an amicable settlement.
SCA Hygiene is a domestic corporation which manufactures and sells industrial paper, tissue and the like. It had an existing CBA with 2 unions: the monthly employees union and the petitioner Daily Employees Union. The 2 unions submitted their grievance for mediation but failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
SCA Hygiene is a domestic corporation which manufactures and sells industrial paper, tissue and the like. It had an existing CBA with 2 unions: the monthly employees union and the petitioner Daily Employees Union. The 2 unions submitted their grievance for mediation but failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION amounting to a promotion.
But the company did
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FFW, Petitioner, not respond. (So in short, feel nila yung pag vs. upgrade sa 22 daily workers to Level 2, and effect SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS ay prinomote sila so nanghihingi sila ng extra CORPORATION, Respondent. pay). FACTS: The 2 unions submitted their grievance for Respondent SCA Hygiene is a domestic mediation but there was failure to reach an corporation which manufactures and sells amicable settlement. industrial paper, tissue and the like. It had an existing CBA with 2 Unions: the Monthly The unions claimed that the 22 daily paid rank- Employees Union and the petitioner Daily and-file employees were entitled to conversion Employees Union (aka SCAHPCEA-FFW). The 2 increase since Job Grade Level 2 positions are represent the monthly and daily paid rank-and-file meant for monthly paid rank-and-file employees employees, respectively. and along with the conversion, said employees were allegedly given additional job descriptions. The 2 CBAs contained Job Evaluation provision, They claimed that they were entitled to promotion stating that the company will conduct job increase as well, since such is the company evaluation when deemed necessary, to be practice everytime an employee’s rank is conducted by a 3rd party, and that the company converted to a higher job grade level. will involve the union members representatives in writing the job description. They compare the increases given to those employees raised from Level 2 to Level 3 because In 2003, the company conducted a company-wide they were granted the benefits concomitant to job evaluation through Mercer HR Consulting, an their new positions. independent consultant. On Feb 2004, Mercer HRC reported to the company the results of the The company responded that the job evaluation job evaluation. Because of this, the company was merely a process of determining the relative adopted 8 new job grade levels: contribution and value of the positions in its operations and does not provide for any adjustment in the salaries of the covered Job Grade Employee[s’] Category employees. Meaning, it is not a promotion and Level they are not entitled to salary and conversion 8 Executive increases. The company contends that the 22 R&F employees still occupy the same positions that 7 Executive they were occupying prior to the job 6 Department Manager evaluation. There was no promotion. And the Level 3 positions were justified because they were 5 Unit Manager the ones promoted to a higher position. 4 Unit Manager The voluntary arbitrator ruled in favour of the Management Team unions and awarded the increases being prayed 3 for. He held that the 22 employees were Member performing duties of a monthly paid rank-and-file 2 Rank-and-File employee. The employees were therefore entitled to conversion increase. 1 Rank-and-File However, the CA on appeal ruled in favour of the So in effect, they made reclassifications for the company. It held that the job evaluation was jobs. conducted as a reorganization process to standardize the company’s organizational set-up. 22 daily paid rank-and-file employees were informed that their positions had been classified The CBAs merely provided the procedure for the as Job Grade Level 2, from Level 1. implementation of the job evaluation. It did not specifically state that the covered employees are Because of this, the Monthly Union demanded that entitled to any salary adjustment after the job those 22 daily paid workers be given evaluation. Hence, in the absence of any law or conversion/promotion increases and salary agreement between the parties, any conversion increases from the time the job evaluation was much less promotion is left entirely to completed because in effect, their positions had respondent’s sound discretion. been converted to a higher job grade level Petitioner contends that the 22 daily paid rank- Job Grade Level 1 to Job Grade Level 2 takes and-file employees were promoted after the job place, a promotion automatically ensues. evaluation. The company counters that the 22 daily paid rank-and-file employees were not Those who were elevated to Job Grade Level 3 promoted since they continue to occupy the same positions were rightfully given the additional positions that they were occupying prior to the job benefits since they have become managerial evaluation. employees, specifically Management Team Members, and not merely rank-and-file ISSUE: W/N the 22 daily paid rank and file employees. The same cannot be said of the employees were promoted when their twenty-two (22) daily paid rank-and-file positions were converted from Job Grade employees involved in the case at bar. Level 1 to Level 2? And W/N they are entitled to a conversion increase. Petitioner also argues that said employees are entitled to conversion increase since such has HELD/RATIO: The company did not act in bad been the company practice everytime an faith. There was no circumvention of the law employee’s rank is converted to a higher job hence the job evaluation was merely a grade level. However, this was not proven. management prerogative. No conversion increase, no promotion.
It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not
authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of its business. The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees have been traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice.
The Court has recognized and affirmed the
prerogative of management to implement a job evaluation program or a re-organization for as long as it is not contrary to law, morals or public policy.
The job evaluation program was undertaken to
streamline respondent’s operations and to place its employees in their proper positions or groupings. A perusal of the CBAs of the parties showed that, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, it merely provided the procedure for the implementation of the job evaluation and did not guarantee any adjustment in the salaries of the employees.
Based on the eight new job grade levels which
respondent adopted after the job evaluation, Job Grade Levels 1 and 2 positions are both categorized as rank-and-file employees. Said employees continued to occupy the same positions they were occupying prior to the job evaluation. Moreover, their job titles remained the same and they were not given additional duties and responsibilities.
There is also no evidence to show that Job Grade
Levels 1 and 2 positions are confined only to daily and monthly paid rank-and-file employees, respectively, such that when a conversion from