Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ablan and Associates For Petitioner. Abdulcadir T. Ibrahim For Private Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Jan Jason Guerrero Lumanag
    6 views1 page
    The National Labor Relations Commission found Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice for unjustified refusal to bargain with the union representing its employees. The union had won a certification election and was certified as the sole bargaining agent. The union provided Sweden Ice Cream with its proposed collective bargaining agreement and requested counterproposals, but Sweden Ice Cream ignored the requests and refused to negotiate. With no other option, the union filed a notice of strike. The NLRC upheld the union's proposed agreement as the governing collective bargaining agreement between the employees and management.

    Original Description:

    g2

    Original Title

    G2

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The National Labor Relations Commission found Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice for unjustified refusal to bargain with the union representing its employees. The union had won a certification election and was certified as the sole bargaining agent. The union provided Sweden Ice Cream with its proposed collective bargaining agreement and requested counterproposals, but Sweden Ice Cream ignored the requests and refused to negotiate. With no other option, the union filed a notice of strike. The NLRC upheld the union's proposed agreement as the governing collective bargaining agreement between the employees and management.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views1 page

    Ablan and Associates For Petitioner. Abdulcadir T. Ibrahim For Private Respondent

    Uploaded by

    Jan Jason Guerrero Lumanag
    The National Labor Relations Commission found Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice for unjustified refusal to bargain with the union representing its employees. The union had won a certification election and was certified as the sole bargaining agent. The union provided Sweden Ice Cream with its proposed collective bargaining agreement and requested counterproposals, but Sweden Ice Cream ignored the requests and refused to negotiate. With no other option, the union filed a notice of strike. The NLRC upheld the union's proposed agreement as the governing collective bargaining agreement between the employees and management.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-54334 January 22, 1986 KIOK LOY, doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM PLANT, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN), respondents. Ablan and Associates for petitioner. Abdulcadir T. Ibrahim for private respondent.

    CUEVAS, J.: Petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated July 20, 1979 which found petitioner Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice for unjustified 2 3 refusal to bargain, in violation of par. (g) of Article 249 of the New Labor Code, and declared the draft proposal of the Union for a collective bargaining agreement as the governing collective bargaining agreement between the employees and the management.
    1

    The pertinent background facts are as follows: In a certification election held on October 3, 1978, the Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa (Union for short), a legitimate late labor federation, won and was subsequently certified in a resolution dated November 29, 1978 by the Bureau of Labor Relations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant (Company for short). The Company's motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was denied on January 25, 1978.
    Thereafter, and more specifically on December 7, 1978, the Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed collective bargaining agreement. At the same time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals. Eliciting no response to the aforesaid request, the Union again wrote the Company reiterating its request for collective bargaining negotiations and for the Company to furnish them with its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company. Left with no other alternative in its attempt to bring the Company to the bargaining table, the Union, on February 14, 1979, filed a "Notice of Strike", with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of 5 unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining.
    4

    You might also like