Kimberly-Clark Philippines Inc. vs. Nora Dimayuga, Rosemarie C. Gloria, Maricar C. De Guia G.R. No.

177705 September 18, 2009 CBA FACTS: The three respondents were resigned employees of the petitioner company. They entered such resignation prior to the companys issuance of an early retirement package which must be availed during the period of November 10-30, 2002. But because of the generosity of the petitioner company, they already included the respondents in the package. But on January 16, 2003, the company added extra financial incentive for employees that would grab the retirement package which added a lump sum retirement pay in the amount of Php. 200,000.00 and a monthly economic assistance. The respondents filed a case in the NLRC claiming that they should be included such additional benefits on the ground that these were illegally withheld to them. ISSUE: o Are additional benefits/bonuses given to the employees due to the gratuitous grant of the employer be required to the employees although it is not included in Collective Bargaining Agreement? LAW: Article 283 of the Labor Code RULING: The court reversed the decision of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the petitioner. According to the Supreme Court, the initial retirement grant already given to the respondents was already due to the privilege given by the company to the employees. They are clearly not included anymore but because of their request, the company made adjustments and reconsidered their inclusion. So when the company announced an additional incentive, it was clear that the respondents are no longer covered by it because they are no longer employees when it was announced. To have them included would be additional burden to the employer. The nature a bonus arose from the financial growth or good performance of the company, it is clearly not mandatory and legally demandable by the employees when it is clear that no collective bargaining agreement or law that mandates the grant. OPINION: I highly agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. This ruling shows that although social legislation exists, when it is clear that the management do not oppress the rights of labor, they cannot be made liable. Upon reading the case, I thought that it was really unfair for

management to release the additional benefits after the resignation of some employees. It gave an impression that they are playing tricks with the employee and that they are undermining their welfare by giving half baked or incomplete offers. But as I continued reading, I saw how the Supreme Court elucidated the facts and demystified the situation of the employees. They were clearly not deprived of anything. The initial grant of the retirement package was already out of gratuity of the employer, something that is not legally demandable. The employees were already given more than what they deserved but still they asked for more. Their actions were not just wrong but also unbecoming.

FVC Labor Union-Philippines Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) vs. Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidatiry of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO)

G.R. No. 176249 November 27, 2009 CBA

FACTS: FVCLU-PTGWO was the recognized bargaining agent of the rank and file employee of the FVC Philippines Inc. It signed a 5 year collective bargaining agreement with the company. the period was from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003. But during at the third year and pursuant to the CBA, the company and the bargaining agent entered into a renegotiation and the term of FVCLU-PTGWO was extended for an additional 4 months and 9 days. Upon the expiration of the original five year period, the respondent of this case SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO filed for a certification election pursuant to the 60 days freedom period. The petition was initially dismissed by the Med-Arbiter claiming that it was outside the freedom period, DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas reversed the decision and granted the petition but upon filing of the Motion for reconsideration the then acting DOLE Secretary reversed the decision again because of the claim that since the entering labor organization benefited by the extension made by the recognized bargaining agent they should also recognized the extension of the period. The action was then filed to the Court of Appeals and again reversed the decision of the DOLE Secretary. Although ultimately the SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO won the case in the CA, since the action was already moot, they filed for relief and dispensed the pursuance of the case. ISSUE: Is the approved extension of the Five Year Period of the recognized bargaining agent before its expiration valid and legal? LAW: Article 253-A of the Labor Code Book V, Rule VIII of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code RULING: The Supreme Court despite the dispensing of the respondent to still pursue the case made a pronouncement. The pronouncement was for the purpose to give light to the valid question of law above stated. I agree with their decision to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals. It is clear and undisputed that according to the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, the sixty day freedom period shall not be affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement. Also if the extension would be permitted, it would create a catastrophic situation. The bargaining unit in power can abuse their position to extend it. TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE PHILIPPINES, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW G.R> No. 186965

December 23, 2009 CBA FACTS: The here named respondent is the exclusive bargaining agent of the company, Temic Automotive. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic break systems and comfort body electronics for automotive vehicles. Their finished products are usually for export. Prior to the signing of the CBA, Temic already has independent contractors which supplies workers that are generally tasked to facilitate the exporting needs of the company. The Union finds it scrupulous because certain tasks of this workers, referred to as forwarders, are the same with the functions of the regular rank and file employees of the Temic. They claim that these workers who also perform the same jobs should be included in the members of the bargaining unit and must be hired by Temic as regular employees, if not it constitutes as violation to the CBA because the Temic limits the membership of the Union through illegal means. Because it was not resolved internally, it was brought to voluntary arbitration. The Arbiter ruled in favor of the Union although it recognized the validity of the contracts entered into by the company to certain independent contractors. On appeal to the CA, the motion by Temic was denied bringing the action now to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: o Are the employees of the Independent Contractor and Temic performing similar jobs? o Are the employees of the Independent Contractors must be included as regular employees and therefore should be members of the bargaining unit as mandated by the CBA? LAW: Article 106 of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. RULING: The court reversed the decisions of the Arbiter and the CA. According to the SC, although it appears that such two sets of workers perform similar tasks, their end goal greatly varies. The forwarders are generally functioning for the purpose connected to the exporting of the finished products and the regular rank and file employees do their tasks for the purpose connected to the finishing of the products. So they are not really performing similar tasks. For the second issue, since the two are distinct from each other, the company cannot be compelled to hire the employees of the Independent Contractors and be added as members of the bargaining unit. Also, the contracts of the Independent Contractors were already in place prior to the CBA. It is deemed that the Union already accepted the terms of the contract of the company to its Independent Contractors. The forwarders cannot be covered by the CBA.

OPINION: I would have to disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. The issue of Control was not properly discussed in the present case. It is hard to accept that employees can be classified into two different sets when in reality they are performing similar jobs, using same equipments, same work area regardless of the end purpose. The reason of the employee of hiring Independent Contractors for the purpose of greater economy and efficiency of operations is contradicting. The court admitted that there is similarity in the functions of the rank and files and the forwarders that I believe is tantamount to repetition of work. Never have I encountered or in the analysis of simple logic repetition became economical. It can be efficient but not economical. It makes the work more precise but it is more costly on the part of the company. The better ruling for me is to declare the forwarders as regular rank and file employees, although they were not made parties to the case subject to the approval the approval of management. Then management should create a more efficient and economical means to address such repetition.

GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS vs. COCACOLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.

G.R. No. 178647 February 13, 2009 ULP FACTS: The petitioner of the case is the exclusive bargaining agent of the company. Because of the economic crisis during the 90s, the company decided to give away early retirement programs to its employees which included the department wherein the petitioner union operates. A number of employees availed the program creating a lot of vacancies. But since the company decided to freeze hire on the vacancies created due to its incapacity to sustain its financial demand, they entered a contract with an Independent Contractor to fill the needed manpower. The Union saw the action of the company as Union Busting which is a clear ground of Unfair Labor Practice. They filed a notice of strike because of such action of the company. The issue was forwarded to the NLRC which denied the claim of the Union. The decision was upheld by the CA bringing the issue to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Is the decision of the company to have an Independent Contractor to fill the vacancies created by the freeze hiring tantamount to unfair labor practice? LAW: Article 248 (c ) of the Labor Code RULING: The Supreme Court denied the petition of the Union. It explained that Unfair Labor Practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self organization and to the observance of the CBA. Without the element, the acts even unfair are not unfair labor practice. The union who has the burden of proving substantial evidence to support its allegations of ULP failed to do so. The contract entered into by the company is valid and the independent contractor they got an indeed a legal independent contractor and not a labor-only contracting contractor. OPINION: I am not fully subscribing to the decision of the Supreme Court. Although I am more inclined in positively agreeing with them. The problem that CCBI experienced was brought about by an external factor that cannot be blamed or attributed to anyone. Because of the situation, any further actions of the company are justified in its exercise of management prerogative in trying to save the business. I would just like to point the decision made the company to freeze hire and open the argument of whether or not the Union was well represented in such discussion. Because I would like to assume that if the union was present there, they would have not allowed the freeze hire to happen in the first place because they know that it will limit the capacity of the Union to

acquire further members. The Union might have felt to be blindsided and betrayed by the company because the company is willing to pay independent contractors but not new hires who can be members of the union.