This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SMC Supervisors and Exempt However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit. In this regard, the CA correctly ruled that the positions of Human Resource Assistant and Personnel Assistant belong to the category of confidential employees and, hence, are excluded from the bargaining unit, considering their respective positions and job descriptions. As Human Resource Assistant, the scope of one’s work necessarily involves labor relations, recruitment and selection of employees, access to employees' personal files and compensation package, and human resource management. As regards a Personnel Assistant, one's work includes the recording of minutes for management during collective bargaining negotiations, assistance to management during grievance meetings and administrative investigations, and securing legal advice for labor issues from the petitioner’s team of lawyers, and implementation of company programs. Therefore, in the discharge of their functions, both gain access to vital labor relations information which outrightly disqualifies them from union membership.
DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY Kiok Loy vs NLRC A Company's refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith and this is specially true where the Union's request for a counter proposal is left unanswered. Neither are WE persuaded by petitioner-company's stand that the Collective Bargaining Agreement which was approved and adopted by the NLRC is a total nullity for it lacks the company's consent, much less its argument that once the Collective Bargaining Agreement is implemented, the Company will face the prospect of closing down because it has to pay a staggering amount of economic benefits to the Union that will equal if not exceed its capital. Such a stand and the evidence in support thereof should have been presented before the Labor Arbiter which is the proper forum for the purpose. We agree with the pronouncement that it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party should not be tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. More so, as in the instant case, where the intervention of the National Labor Relations Commission was properly sought for after conciliation efforts undertaken by the BLR failed. The instant case being a certified one, it must be resolved by the NLRC pursuant to the mandate of P.D. 873, as amended, which authorizes the said body to determine the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of employment embodied in any Collective Bargaining Agreement.
MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE CBA University of the Immaculate Concepcion vs. SOLE
they still have the duty to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement in good faith. Although it is true that the university and the union may have reached an agreement on the issues raised during the collective bargaining negotiations. no CBA could be concluded because of what the union perceived as illegal deductions from the 70% employees' share in the tuition fee increase from which the salary increases shall be charged. among other reasons. a no-strike clause in a CBA is applicable only to economic strikes. pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Labor Code. the DOLE Secretary. to decide the conflict. a strike declared by the union cannot be considered a violation of the no-strike clause. 1995 only was set to resolve the distribution of the salary increase of the covered employees. the NLRC relied solely on the no-strike no-lockout provision of the CBA aforequoted. In this case. Petitioner insisted that a new collective bargaining agreement was concluded through the conciliation proceeding before the NCMB on all issues specified in the notice of strike. if the strike is founded on an unfair labor practice of the employer. It should be remembered that a grievance procedure is part of the continuous process of collective bargaining. the strike they staged was legal because the reasons therefor are non-economic in nature. The Corporation's refusal to heed petitioners' request to undergo the grievance procedure clearly demonstrated its lack of intent to abide by the terms of the CBA. Also. NLRC Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as “the situation between the labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate." Considering the parties failed to reach an agreement regarding certain items of the CBA. still no agreement was concluded by them because. In holding that the strike was illegal. the manner of computing the net incremental proceeds was yet to be agreed upon by the parties. is nonexistent in the present case since there is a Board assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the grievance machinery to resolve the conflicting views of the parties. It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means of maintaining industrial peace. The Court of Appeals found that "there are many items in the draft-CBA that were not even mentioned in the minutes of the July 20. 1994 conference.As in all other contracts. They assert that the NLRC abused its discretion in holding that there was "failure to exhaust the provision on grievance procedure" in view of the fact that they themselves sought grievance meetings but the Corporation ignored such requests. Private respondent's failure to traverse petitioners' allegations that the NLRC abused its discretion in holding that the provision on grievance procedure had not been exhausted clearly sustains such allegation and upholds the petitioners' contention that the Corporation refused to undergo said procedure. who assumed jurisdiction on January 23. and thereafter. San Miguel Corp. vs. petitioner declared a deadlock. As this Court has held. there must be clear indications that the parties reached a meeting of the minds. Corollarily. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Master Iron vs.” This situation. For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration . filed a notice of strike. Instead of asking the Conciliation Board composed of five representatives each from the company and the union. NLRC Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the non-strike provision in the CBA.
there is mutual antagonism. not a protected action. CA On the first issue. therefore. the act of the striking employees is violative of the foregoing provision. In this case. First.Such assumption or certification (of the SOLE) shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order.proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Being bald or having cropped hair per se does not evoke negative or unpleasant . enmity. we are not ready to substitute our own findings in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on her part. most especially in this case. the Hotel argues that the Union's deliberate defiance of the company rules and regulations was a concerted effort to paralyze the operations of the Hotel. would have been the only avenue where further incidents and damages could be avoided. and animosity between the union and the management. 2002. and these matters should be referred to a Voluntary Arbitrator. as the Union officers and members knew pretty well that they would not be allowed to work in their bald or cropped hair style. The appearances of the Hotel employees directly reflect the character and well-being of the Hotel. NO STRIKE/NO LOCKOUT NUWRAIN/Dusit The peculiar circumstances in the present case validate the Secretary's decision to order payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement. as provided in Art. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION University of San Agustin vs. the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings." The phrase "immediately return to work" indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly served. which included the issue on the formula in computing the TIP share of the employees. 261 and 262 of the Labor Code. as with most labor disputes which have resulted in strikes. the Hotel argues that the Union committed an illegal strike on January 18. The peculiar facts of the instant case show that the University was deprived of a remedy that would have enjoined the Union strike and was left without any recourse except to invoke the jurisdiction of the SOLE. It is obviously impracticable for the Hotel to actually reinstate the employees who shaved their heads or cropped their hair because this was exactly the reason they were prevented from working in the first place. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification. all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. On the other hand.". The Secretary surely meant only to ensure industrial peace as she assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 263 of the Labor Code provides: . Public officials entrusted with specific jurisdictions enjoy great confidence from this Court. 2002 and on January 26. the Supreme Court ruled that economic benefits. the Union's violation of the Hotel's Grooming Standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the Hotel and was. The Union maintains that the mass picket conducted by its officers and members did not constitute a strike and was merely an expression of their grievance resulting from the lockout effected by the Hotel management. the SC ruled that ART. is one that arises from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA. Therefore. Payroll reinstatement. For this reason. being a five-star hotel that provides service to top-notch clients.. Further. On the second issue.
suggests that something is amiss and insinuates a sense that something out of the ordinary is afoot. no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. This was shown by the fact that after coming to work on January 18. any employee who was suspected of being "MAO" would have been the object of the Company's moves. been committed. NLRC Such provision in the CBA may not be interpreted ascession of employees' rights to participate in the deliberation of matters which may affect their rights and the formulation of policies relative thereto. we cannot sustain the charge of unfair labor practice against the Company. LABOR MANAGEMENT COUNCIL PAL vs. it suffices that the striking workers are shown to have acted honestly on an impression that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and the surrounding circumstances could warrant such a belief in good faith. Clearly. merely decreed suspension. having found no sufficient proof to hold them guilty of "bad faith" in taking part in the strike or of perpetrating "serious disorders" during the concerted activity. In this situation. . NLRC Be that as it may. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. the decision to violate the company rule on grooming was designed and calculated to place the Hotel management on its heels and to force it to agree to the Union's proposals. No matter how detestable. some Union members even had their heads shaved or their hair cropped at the Union office in the Hotel's basement. the Hotel does not need to advertise its labor problems with its clients. In the case of the other union officers.feelings. The facts are clear that the strike arose out of a bargaining deadlock in the CBA negotiations with the Hotel." That Huyan was the Union vice-president was purely incidental. it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has. the principal cause behind this controversy is the Company's suspicion that Huyan was "MAO. And one such matter is the formulationof a code of discipline. Huyan was not pinpointed because he was a union officer or because the Company is anti-union but rather because of the suspicion that he wrote the column that caught the ire of the company's Operations Manager. in fact. however. 2002. As admitted by Huyan and the Union. It can be gleaned from the records before us that the Union officers and members deliberately and in apparent concert shaved their heads or cropped their hair. It has heretofore been held that a "no strike. the resultant moves of the company cannot be considered unfair labor practice. Industrial peace cannot be achieved if theemployees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. Obviously. the NLRC. irrespective of whether that employee is a union officer or not. The reality that a substantial number of employees assigned to the food and beverage outlets of the Hotel with full heads of hair suddenly decided to come to work bald-headed or with cropped hair. We see no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in this regard and in not thus ordering the dismissal of said officers. however. The concerted action is an economic strike upon which the afore-quoted "no strike/work stoppage and lockout" prohibition is squarely applicable and legally binding. Put in another way. Panay Electric vs.
legal presumption of good faith. . Nestle No test per se of bad faith.Union of Filipino Employees vs. Overcome by substantial evidence. Drawn from facts.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.