labor relations 35-38 digest

7/27/2019 Labor relations 35-38 Digest

1/8

CASE 35

Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union-NFL [CABEU-NFL] vs.

Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. [CAB] G.R. No. 186605

FACTS: CABEU-NFL the certified bargaining agent of CABrank-and-file-employees sent to the latter a proposedCBAseeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sickleave benefits of the monthly employees and the grant of leave

benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal workers. CABresponded with a counter- proposalto the effect that the

production bonus incentive and special production bonus andincentives be maintained. CAB, however, did not agree togrant additional and separate Christmas bonuses. CABreceived anAmended Union Proposal8 sent by CABEU-NFLreducing its previous demand regarding wages and bonuses.CAB, however, maintained its position on the matter. Thus, thecollective bargaining negotiations resulted in a deadlock. Onaccount of the impasse, CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike

with theNCMB. The NCMB then summoned the parties toconciliation conferences. CAB replied through a letterCABEU-NFL has already lost its majority status by reason ofthe disauthorization and withdrawal of support thereto by more than90% of the rank and file employees and that the workers themselveshave organized a new union representing almost all the rank-and-fileemployees in the central, the CABELA union. Clearly, therefore, therequest for further conciliation conference will serve no lawful and

practical purpose. It appears that the NCMB failed to act on theletter- response of CAB. Neither did it convene CAB andCABEU- NFL to continue the negotiations between them.

Reacting from the letter-response of CAB, CABEU-NFL fileda Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice12 for the formers


2/8

refusal to bargain with it.

Issue: Whether or not committed CAB committed UnfairLabor Practice on the ground of refusal to bargain

Held: For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must beshown that CAB was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or wasoppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, goodcustoms, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation,wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted in suspending negotiationswith CABEU-NFL. Notably, CAB believed thatCABEU-NFL was nolonger the representative of the workers. It just wanted to fosterindustrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the overwhelming majority

of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in goodfaith a CBA with CABELA. Such actions of CAB are nowheretantamount to anti- unionism, the evil sought to be punished in cases ofunfair labor practices.


3/8

CASE 36

CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OFFREE WORKERS,vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.

G.R. No. 190515

Cirtek Electronics, Inc. (respondent), had an existing CBAwith Cirtek Employees Labor Union- Federation of FreeWorkers (petitioner) for the period January 1, 2001 up to

December 31, 2005. Prior to the 3rd year of the CBA, theparties renegotiated its economic provisions but failed to reacha settlement, particularly on the issue of wage increases.Petitioner thereupon declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a

Notice of Strike with the NCMB. Respondent, upon the otherhand, filed a Notice of Lockout.

The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the

controversy and issued a Return to Work Order which wascomplied with.

Before the Secretary of Labor could rule on the controversy,respondent created a Labor Management Council throughwhich it concluded with the remaining officers of petitioner aMemorandum of Agreementproviding for daily wageincreases of P6.00 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P9.00

per day effective January 1, 2005. Petitioner submitted theMOA to the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter the Secretary ofLabor resolved the CBA deadlock by awarding a wageincrease of from P6.00 to P10.00 per day effective January 1,2004 and from P9.00 to P15.00 per day effective January 1,2005, andadopting all other benefits as embodied in the MOA.


4/8

Issue: whether the Secretary of Labor is authorized to give anaward higher than that agreed upon in the MOA

Held: Yes. It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor, in the

exercise of his power to assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g) of theLabor Code, may resolve all issues involved in the controversyincluding the award of wage increases and benefits. While an arbitralaward cannotper sebe categorized as an agreement voluntarily enteredinto by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing

power of the State thru the Secretary of Labor when he assumesjurisdiction, the arbitral award can be considered an approximation ofa collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have beenentered into by the parties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid

contract obligation.


5/8

CASE 37

Solidbank Corporation vs. Gamier

G.R. No. 159460

Solidbank and Solidbank Employees Union were set to

renegotiate the economic provisions of their CBA to cover theremaining two years thereof. Negotiations commenced on butseeing that an agreement was unlikely, the Union declared adeadlock on and filed a Notice of Strike.During the collective

bargaining negotiations, some Union members staged a seriesof mass actions. In view of the impending actual strike, thenSecretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction overthe labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor

Code. The assumption order directed the parties to cease anddesist from committing any and all acts that might exacerbatethe situation. Dissatisfied with the Secretarys ruling, theUnion officers and members decided to protest the same byholding a rally in front of the Office of the Secretary of Labor.Thereafter an overwhelming majority of employees, includingthe individual respondents, joined the mass leave and protestaction at DOLE office while the banks provincial branches

followed suit and boycotted regular work.The union membersalso picketed the banks Head Office. As a result of theemployees concerted actions, Solidbanks business operationswere paralyzed. On the same day, then President of Solidbank,Deogracias N. Vistan, issued a memorandum7 addressed to all


6/8

employees calling their absence from work and demonstrationinfront of the DOLE office as an illegal act, and remindingthem that they have put their jobs at risk as they will be askedto show cause why they should not be terminated for

participating in the union-instigated concerted action. Theemployees work abandonment/boycott lasted for three days.

ISSUE: Whether the protest rally staged by the union violatedthe Order of the Secretary of Labor, hence constitutes illegalstrike

Held: Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any

temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as aresult of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes anycontroversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employmentor the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions ofemployment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the

proximate relation of employers and employees. The term strike

shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant

equipment and facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that theconventional term strike was not used by the striking employees todescribe their common course of action is inconsequential, since thesubstance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to becontrolling.


7/8

CASE 38

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 155109

FACTS: C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., is a domestic corporationengaged in the manufacture and processing of plywood.

Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) is theexclusivebargaining agent of the Companys rank and fileemployees. The other parties to these cases are the Unionofficersand their striking members. The Company and the

Union entered into CBA that bound them to hold no strike andno lockout in the course of its life. At some point the partiesbegan negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA butthis ended in a deadlock, prompting theUnion to file a noticeof strike. After efforts at conciliation by the DOLE failed, theUnion conducted a strike vote that resulted in an overwhelmingmajority of its members favoring it. The Union reported thestrike vote to the DOLE and, after the observance of the

mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike.The Company, on the other hand, filed a petition to declare theUnions strike illegal,citing its violation of the no strike, nolockout, provision of their CBA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Union staged an illegal strike

HELD: A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor unionhas complied with the strict requirements for staging one as provided inArticle 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to anexisting agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive arbitrationclause. Here, the CBA between the parties contained a no strike, nolockout provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company

from resorting to the use of economic weapons available to them underthe law and to instead take recourse to voluntary arbitration in settling


8/8

their disputes. No law or public policy prohibits the Union and theCompany from mutually waiving the strike and lockout macesavailable to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. Indeed, no lessthan the 1987 Constitution recognizes in Section 3, Article XIII,

preferential use of voluntary means to settle disputes. ThusThe Stateshall promote the principle of shared responsibility betweenworkers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary

modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce

their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

labor relations 35-38 digest

Documents