You are on page 1of 13


Collective Bargaining
(Art 250-257)
G.R. No. L-22456 - 27September 1967
In 1959, SMB entered in a CBA with National
Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union-PAFLU,
which was to take effect for 3 years. Said CBA
contained a closed-shop agreement. Salonga was
a member of the union since 1953. In August
1961, he tendered his resignation from the Union,
which accepted it 8 days after and transmitted
the same to the Company on August 29, 1961,
with a request for the immediate implementation
of said agreement.
implementation of the agreement, Salunga wrote
to the Union to revoke his resignation and for him
to continue being deducted of his monthly union
dues. He furnished the Company a copy of the
same. SMB, in turn, notified the Union of its
receipt and said that it shall not take any action
on the case and shall consider Salunga still a
union member. The Union told SMB that his
membership could not be reinstated and it
insisted on his separation from the service, to
which the Company replied that it is not insisting
on his readmission and that following his perusal
of the CBA, Salunga decided on withdrawing his
resignation without any pressure or bad faith.
SMB eventually said that if the Union still
considers him as having actually resigned from
the organization, and if it insists that he be
dismissed him from the service in accordance
with the closed-shop agreement, it will have no
alternative but to do so. Upon reiteration by the
Union of its request for implementation of the
agreement, SMB notified Salunga of his
termination. After seeking intervention from
PAFLU, his dismissal was deferred but albeit his
request that SMB maintain the status quo as his
appeal was pending, he was still discharged from
his employment.
Soon after, a proceeding for ULP commenced
against herein respondents and in due course,
decision was rendered declaring the respondents

guilty, and have ordered for them to cease and
desist from further committing such acts
readmission and continuation of petitioner
without prejudice to his rights as a member of the
union, his reinstatement to his former position
with SMB, and for the decision to be posted, with
a copy of the certificate of compliance to be
furnished to the court after a month. On MR of
the respondents, the decision was reversed by
the CIR, which dismissed the case.
1. WON the CIR erred in reversing the decision of
the lower court declaring the respondents guilty
of ULP in effecting the closed-shop agreement
provided in the CBA.
2. WON SMB is guilty of ULP.
1. YES. The Court upheld the decision of the
lower court and ruled that the Union acted
arbitrarily in not allowing Salunga to continue his
membership and it did so without any just cause
therefor. It also held that CIR did not reverse
these findings of fact or even question the
accuracy thereof.
2. NO, the Court did not find SMB guilty of unfair
labor practice. It did not merely show a
commendable understanding of and sympathy for
Salunga’s plight and even tried to help him,
although to such extent only as was consistent
with its obligation to refrain from interfering in
purely internal affairs of the Union.
If the resolution appealed from was affirmed, it
will nullify the right of union members to give
their views on "all transactions made by the
Union;" which is part and parcel of the freedom of
speech guaranteed by the Constitution - a
condition sine qua non to the sound growth and
democratic institutions.
The decision of the lower court was affirmed, and
the appealed resolution of the CIR en banc was
reversed, with costs against respondents, except
the Company.
Unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude
qualified applicants for membership, and a
closed-shop provision would not justify the
employer in discharging, or a union in insisting
upon the discharge of, an employee whom the
union thus refuses to admit to membership,
without any reasonable ground therefor. If they
may be compelled to admit new members, who

1 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

hours of work. Conciliation proceedings followed during the 30day statutory cooling-off period and as all attempts towards an amicable settlement failed. Following the non-appearance of the representatives of the company and the repeated requests for postponement by the Company. the Union. The Court affirmed the NLRC.22 January 1986 FACTS: A certification election held in 1978. Indeed. indirectly. who. it filed a "Notice of Strike” with BLR due to the refusal of Sweden to bargain which. was impelled to tender his resignation. the Union has a valid cause to complain against its attitude. The Union thereafter furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed CBA and has requested the Company for its counter proposals. that the CBA approved and adopted by the NLRC is unreasonable and lacks legal basis. and ruled that. BLR was prompted to refer the case to NLRC for compulsory arbitration. a legitimate late labor federation. par. and instead requested for a resetting. after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by the Union. which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. confirmed the fact that its refusal to allow the withdrawal of his resignation had been due to his aforementioned criticisms which did not only assail the Union. designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. petitioner Company is GUILTY of unfair labor practice as it was shown that the employer.have the requisite qualifications. HELD: YES. Petitioner countered. LA Fedelino ruled that the Company has waived its right to present further evidence and submitted for resolution. ISSUE: WON the respondent is guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain. won as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the R&F employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant. with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power when the employee involved is a long standing union member. the officers tried to justify themselves by characterizing said criticisms as acts of disloyalty to the Union. 54334 . NLRC and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN) G. but the acts of its officers. From the over-all conduct of petitioner company in relation to the task of negotiation. the totality of which is indicative of the latter's disregard of. 56. KIOK LOY. Twice it did so but both requests were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company. RATIO: Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a CA is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. contending that that the Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. and. did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal. The Petition was dismissed. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation. it is indubitably shown that it disregarded its obligation to bargain hence. and that its findings as regards ULP for refusal to bargain is not supported by law and evidence considering that it was only on May 24. Year 3 | UPang . doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM PLANT vs. The LA set hearings and ordered for the parties to submit their respective position papers as required. the officers themselves. No. the Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa. by not presenting evidence to overcome the testimonies of Salunga on what caused him to submit his resignation have.R. The Union submitted its position paper but the Company did not. and failure to live up to. and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract 2 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. So much so that Article 249. in violation Section (g) Article 249. In this case. 1979 that the Union furnished them with a copy of the proposed CBA and it was only then that they came to know of the Union's demands. in effect. owing to provocations of union officers. what is enjoined by the Labor Code to bargain in good faith. Eventually. as was subsequently certified in a resolution by the BLR. considered the case NLRC rendered its decision declaring the respondent guilty of ULP for its unjustified refusal to bargain. and finally. The Company filed an MR of the said resolution but was denied.

Drilon. which was granted by Sec.” Said Order prompted the DWUEU-ALU to file an urgent motion seeking to enjoin MA Milado from further acting on the matter of the certification election. acting on the University’s petition for certification election. Milado. then SoL Franklin M. After almost 3 years. the University had filed a petition for certification election with DOLE. MA.R. 1988. Drilon then issued an order for the entire labor dispute including all incidents arising therefrom. accompanied with a copy of the proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement. DWUEU’s resigned VP Urmeneta unilaterally withdrew the CBA proposals. SoL and DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU G. 263(g). de la Serna. Granting that the withdrawal was valid. The conferences held thereafter led to the conclusion of an agreement between the University and Union on May 10. DWUEU-ALU filed with NCMB a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP due to the University’s refusal to bargain. DWUEU. assumption of jurisdiction). As the conciliation conferences thereafter conducted failed. He also designated the NCMB to hear the case and to submit its report thereon. which were ignored by the University. Dela Serna concluded that for reneging on the agreement and for its “reluctance and subscription to legal delay. DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN vs. On the same day. Acting Secretary of Labor Dionisio L. the Union was a duly certified bargaining agent. it made a definite request to bargain. and it’s discrimination and coercion on employees. the Acting Secretary believed that it did not “exculpate the University from the duty to bargain with the Union” because the CB processes had been “set in motion from the time the CBA proposals were received by the University until the impasse took place on account of its failure to reply to the Union’s letters pursuing its CBA Proposals dated March 11 and 23. if requested by either party. Drilon issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute and directing all striking workers to report back to work within 24 hours and the management to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage. issued an Order directing the conduct of a certification election to be participated in by DWUEU-ALU.” the University should be “declared in default. which had by then affiliated with the Associated Labor Union. Eventually. Despite the letter. DWUEU-ALU sent a follow-up letter reiterating its request for a conference and warning the University against committing acts of interference through its various meetings with both the academic and non-academic employees regarding their union affiliation and activities. the University remained intransigent. requested a conference with the University for the purpose of continuing the collective bargaining negotiations and for not having heard from it. No. the Union still submitted its CB proposals.” On the University’s assertion that no negotiations took place insofar as the CB proposals are concerned. In the case at bar. and the Company made no counter proposal whatsoever all of which conclusively indicate lack of a sincere desire to negotiate. DWUEU submitted its CB proposals. In January 1990. along with other conditions. He noted the fact that the CB proposals of the DWUEU had not been validly withdrawn as the union’s VP had resigned and the withdrawal was signed only by three of the eight members of the Executive Board of said union. The University replied and requested a preliminary conference but prior to the scheduled meeting. 1888. directing Milado to hold in abeyance any and all certification election proceedings at the University pending the resolution of the labor dispute. after finding it to be “well-supported in fact and in law. “dismissed” for lack of merit the University’s MR and affirmed the Order of May 23. 1989 (consolidation. or necessarily related thereto and the following cases subsumed or consolidated (in exercise of his extraordinary powers under Art. however. which required the latter to submit its CBA proposals. In consonance with the agreement. MA Elorcha certified the Divine Word University-EU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the University. The following year. consequently cancelling the conference. to the Company not only once but twice which were left unanswered and unacted upon. ASec. it turned out that on the same day. LC). Year 3 | UPang . 91915 – 11 September 1992 In 1984. Notwithstanding the agreement. Sec. 57.” He also maintained that since under the 3 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran.incorporating such agreement.

as. 1988 collective bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio. the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Secretary of Labor had found that a bargaining deadlock exists.circumstances the University cannot claim deprivation of due process. On the University’s contention that the motion for intervention of the DWU-IFEU was not resolved. no less than its inaction which bespeak its insincerity. there is a corresponding responsibility on the part of the employer to respond in some manner to such acts. Records reveal that there was no “reasonable effort at good faith bargaining” specially on the part of the University. Dela Serna was acting in accordance with the exigencies of the circumstances of the case. This is in consonance with the principle of avoiding multiplicity of suits.” Bad faith on the part of the University is exemplified by the fact that an hour before the 4 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. We. therefore. As it was evident that unilateral moves were being undertaken only by the DWUEU-ALU. While there is no question that the petition for certification election was filed by the herein petitioner after almost four years from the time of the certification election and. That being the case. By its acts. the Acting Secretary ruled that said motion was in effect denied when the petition for certification election filed by the University was dismissed in the Order of May 23. Its indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement. Hardly can it be said to be an abuse of his discretion. resolution of the MR at the earliest possible time was urgently needed to set at rest the issues regarding the first notice of strike. despite noble intentions. 3. agreement proposals motu proprio. The nature of the business of the University demanded immediate and effective action on the part of the respondent public officials. Thus.”[22] The word is synonymous with the word impasse which. find it superfluous to discuss the two other contentions in its petition. 1989. Year 3 | UPang . the University had recourse to instant petition. “presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which. Yes. does not conclude in agreement between the parties. the studentry and their parents. the petitioner may not validly assert that its consent should be a primordial consideration in the bargaining process. RATIO: A “deadlock” is defined as the “counteraction of things producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization caused by the opposition of persons or of factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill. the Office of the SoL may rightfully impose the Union’s May 19. an employer who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election any time except upon a clear showing that one of these two instances exists: (a) the petition is filed within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election result or (b) when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The Court ruled that a single decision or order should settle all controversies resulting from a labor dispute. No. issuing his order of 17 January 1990 finally denying the University’s MR. ASec.” There is a deadlock when there is a “complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces. within the meaning of the American federal labor laws. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Hence. when he set aside the issues raised in the second notice of strike. it has forfeited whatever rights it could have asserted as an employer. 2. No. Otherwise. In this case. The Petition was DISMISSED for lack of merit. 3. the deadlock of a jury or legislature. ISSUES: WON respondent Seretary committed grave and patent abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in: 1. 2. not only the contending parties in the dispute would be adversely affected but more importantly. the certification election and the ULP cases filed by the University and the DWUEU-ALU. While collective bargaining should be initiated by the union. therefore. there is no question as to the timeliness of the petition.WON the Petitioner is guilty of ULP for not bargaining in good faith. there was no “counteraction” of forces or an impasse to speak of. HELD: 1. holding that a certification election is mandatory in the absence of a certified CBA and there having been no certification election held in petitioner unit for more than five (5) years.

Nos. it surreptitiously filed the petition for certification election.” Moreover. And yet during said conference. 158930-31 March 3. and observe honesty and good faith. which include. c. INCORPORATED G. 2008 FACTS: Petition assailing the decisions of the NLRC affirming the unanimous decisions of LAs that declared the strikes illegal of 3 different cases involving the same parties a. it reiterated its stance that unilateral grants.. UFE staged a strike w/o notice of strike and strike vote Nestle sent individual letters dismissing them from service for knowingly instigating & participating in an illegal strike UFE filed a complaint for illegal dismissal LA dismissed illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit & confirmed the dismissal of all individual complainants as valid. all workers staged a sitdown strike SOLE ordered return to work Despite the return to work order issued by the SOLE. NESTLE PHILS. negotiations for a new CBA was conducted. Obviously. non-implementation of CBA provisions on Labor Mgt Corp Scheme. 2nd case UFE officers sent a letter to WATU (Nestle union in CDO) – advising them that they shall administer the CBA by themselves w/ the help of UFE – claiming to be the contracting party of the CBA Consequently. Since the CBA was about to expire on 5 June 2001. In a letter sent by the company to the petitioner. the University violated the mandate of Art. financial assistance & other acts of ULP. Nos. 3rd case UFE filed a notice of strike – ULP for hiring contractual workers to perform regular jobs & wage discrimination At the instigation of UFE union officers.” 58. Incidental Straight Duty 5 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. 19 of the Civil Code that “(e)very person must. onetime company grants.R. Year 3 | UPang . UFE continued with the strike LA declared the strike illegal. 2008 FACTS: Petitioner was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestle. it committed itself to “sit down” with the Union. but are not limited to the Retirement Plan. by filing the petition for certification election while agreeing to confer with the DWUEU-ALU.R. 1st case UFE filed a complaint for ULP: non-payment of holiday pay. give everyone his due.start of the May 10. the union guilty of ULP & the union officers to have lost their employment status. the union officers to have lost their employment status. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES. the rank and file employees of the company staged a strike at the instigation of the UFE officers LA declared the strike illegal. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFEDFA-KMU) vs. act with justice. the University failed to act in accordance with Art. 1988 conference. In so doing. the University tried to preempt the conference which would have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition for certification election. 158930-31 March 3. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES vs. 252 of the Labor Code which defines the meaning of the duty to bargain collectively as “the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith. SC affirms NLRC decision affirming all LA decisions 58. G. manned the picket lines & advocated a boycott of company products Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal – the MOLE issued another return-to-work order Despite the second order. Nestle filed a petition for assumption of jurisdiction MOLE assumed jurisdiction & released a returnto-work order UFE filed for the issuance of a TRO assailing the assumption of jurisdiction by the MOLE but still went on w/ the strike. the union guilty of ULP & dismissed the union complaint for ULP b. INC. company-initiated policies and programs.

the Union suggested that the Bank’s lawyers are to be excluded from its negotiating panel. ruling entirely in favor of UFE-DFAKMU. the basic issues of the case having been passed upon and there being no new arguments availing. Nestle. As we have stated in this Court’s Decision. are by their very nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom. The Union and the Bank signed a 5 year CBA in 1990 with a provision to renegotiate its terms in its 3rd year. 114974 16 June 2004 FACTS: Petitioner Union is the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of Standard Chartered Bank (Bank). thereby committing ULP when it imposed a precondition in collective bargaining negotiations? RULING: (1)No. In 1993. because the negotiations were not the unilateral activity of the bargaining representative. but the latter did not comply to said order. which prompted the petitioner to file a notice of strike with NCMB for a bargaining deadlock. Both parties appealed the aforequoted ruling. So a petition for certiorari was filed to CA against the SOLE for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Jr. Sto. ISSUE: 1. The Bank however. The cases were consolidated. So a return-to-work order was directed by SOLE against members of petitioner. The MR of both parties were denied by CA so a separate petition for certiorari was filed to SC. enjoining any strike and lockout and ordered conciliation among the parties. Despite 15 meetings. The MR filed was subsequently denied. the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY for lack of merit. In thinking to exclude the issue of Retirement Plan from the CBA negotiations. pertaining to economic issues. Before negotiations can begin. Prior to the holding of the strike. Year 3 | UPang . WHEREFORE. the question of good faith may be a question of credibility. The Bank agreed. due to the alleged ULP of Nestle. The Bank submitted its counter-proposal and the respective list of the members of its negotiating panel. cannot be faulted for considering the same benefit as unilaterally granted. However. this time. the President of NUBE be excluded from the Union’s negotiating panel. there is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. Umali remained a member of the Union’s panel. numerous pleadings and an MR was filedd by petitioner which the SOLE denied. and the inferences fairly drawn therefrom collectively may offer a basis for the finding of the NLRC. No costs. To some degree. Umali. consistent with the discussions in this Courts Decision of 22 August 2006 and as hereinabove set forth. CA promulgated its Decision on the twin petitions for certiorari. But the parties failed to reconcile. Dialogue between the company and the union thereafter ensued. CONFESOR G. suggested that Jose P. considered as a whole. The effect of an employers or a unions individual actions is not the test of good-faith bargaining. Thereafter. The then acting SOLE tried to resolve the dispute and decided against the Union. Then another notice of strike was again filed. It submitted its proposal to the Bank as well as a list containing the members of its negotiating panel. a strike was conducted by members of petitioner. said letter is not tantamount to refusal to bargain. premises considered. As we have said. but the impact of all such occasions or actions. Sec.Pay and Calling Pay Premium. Despite such prohibition. Tomas assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. An MR was filed by petitioner but was denied by SOLE.R. the parties failed to meet an agreement so Nestle requested NCMB to conduct a preventive suspension. the Union initiated negotiations.. Nestls desire to settle the dispute and proceed with the negotiation being evident in its cry for compulsory arbitration is proof enough of its exertion of reasonable effort at good-faith bargaining. No. This is not a case where the employer exhibited an indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining.WON Nestle violates its duty to bargain collectively. 6 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. 59. Let these cases be remanded to the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment for proper disposition. So a 2nd petition to CA for nullification of SOLE’s orders was again instituted. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION vs. considering that eight out of nine bargaining units have allegedly agreed to treat the Retirement Plan as a unilaterally granted benefit.

the parties laid down the ground rules. Article 248(a) considers it an ULP if the employer interferes. the Union declared a deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. the act of the bank’s Human Resource Manager in suggesting the exclusion of the federation president from the negotiating panel 7 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. The duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. Then Secretary of Labor Confesor assumed jurisdiction of the dispute and dismissed the ULP charges of both the Bank and Union. On June 21. ISSUE: WON SoL Confessor committed grave abuse of discretion when she dismissed the ULP charge filed by the Union. Likewise. Year 3 | UPang . The facts show that the suggestion to exclude Umali Jr. HELD: No ULP committed by the Bank or Union. was not an anti-union conduct from which it can be inferred that the Bank adopted to undermine the free exercise of the right to selforganization and collective bargaining of the employees especially when it was requested after the Union requested the exclusion of the Bank’s lawyer from its negotiating panel. It cannot be said that she acted in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. On its part. 1994. ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed. in this case. 1993.During the preliminary negotiations. Exasperated. Afterwards. On March 22. the Bank filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against the Union with the Labor Arbiter. Umali chided the Bank for the insufficiency of its counter-proposal and reminded the Bank how they got what they wanted in 1987 and that they were willing to resort to such means if needed. negotiations on the economic provisions began on May 18. restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self organization or the right to form an association. The parties were not able to reach at an agreement leaving some of the provisions as DEFERRED/DEADLOCKED. The negotiations on the revisions on the CBA began on March 12. the Union and the Bank could not reach an agreement. substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Like before. Surface bargaining is defined as going through the motions of negotiating without any legal intent to reach an agreement. Further. the ULP charge was merely an afterthought as the complaint was only made after a deadlock was declared by the Union. the impasse remained. However. 1993. The Bank claimed that the Union engaged in blue sky bargaining (unrealistic or unreasonable demands in negotiations where neither concedes anything or demands the impossible). neither is the Union guilty of ULP for engaging in blue sky bargaining.. and if it can be inferred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employees. The Bank also claimed that the Union violated the no strike-no lockout clause of the CBA. the Bank and Union signed the CBA. Umali asserted that it would be easier to bargain if both parties trusted each other like before. There was no showing that the public respondent exercised her power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. There was no surface bargaining on the part of the Bank. 1993. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Secretary of Labor. The negotiations resumed but even after the submission of counter-proposals from both parties. Such is a question of the intent of the party in question and usually such intent can be inferred from the totality of the challenged party’s conduct both at and away from the table. ===== If an employer interferes in the selection of the union’s negotiators or coerces the union to exclude from its panel of negotiators are representative of the union. In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code. The proposed non-economic provisions were discussed first. The Bank requested the Union to refrain from involving personalities and to focus on the negotiations. The Bank suggested that the negotiation be kept a “family affair”. She also ordered the award of certain benefits. The demands of the Union were not exaggerated or unreasonably but based on the data of rank and file employees and other prevailing economic benefits received by employees in the industry.

A "Petition for Relief" was filed in behalf of 186 of the private respondents "Mariano J. therefore. it could not possibly refers to terms and conditions which. F: Surface bargaining v. 22 It is even conceded. It is not an anti-union conduct from which it can be inferred that the bank consciously adopted such act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise of the right to self-organization and collective bargaining of the employees. even the nonmember employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. In their petition. nor were any of the economic provisions and/or terms and conditions pertaining to monetary benefits in the existing agreement modified or altered. and (b) the CBA proposals submitted by the NFL as the CBA between the regular rank-and-file employees in the bargaining unit and petitioner Company. Year 3 | UPang . The law does not provide for any exception nor qualification as to which of the economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain force and effect. No. The records show that after the initiation of the collective bargaining process. they are duty-bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. may not claim benefits thereunder. therefore. As for the term of the CBA. By necessity. 124224 17 March 2000 FACTS: The National Federation of Labor (NFL) was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. no new agreement was entered into by and between petitioner Company and NFL pending appeal of the decision in NLRC Case No.R. and therefore. ISSUE: WON the private respondent are entitled to the benefits under the CBA. In the case at bar. NFL started to negotiate for the employees in the bargaining unit. petitioner maintains that Article 253 of the Labor Code refers to the continuation in full force and effect of the previous CBA's terms and conditions. Petitioners argue that the private respondents are not entitled to the benefits under the CBA because employees hired after the term of a CBA are not parties to the agreement. as expressly stipulated. they claimed that they were "wrongfully excluded from enjoying the benefits under the CBA since the agreement with NFL and petitioner Company limited the CBA's implementation to only the 142 rank-and-file employees enumerated." NLRC declared that the 186 excluded employees "form part and parcel of the then existing rank- and-file bargaining unit" and were. Inc. Labor Arbiter: issued an order declaring (a) herein petitioner Company guilty of ULP. ceased to have force and effect. so that the former was prompted to file a complaint for ULP on the ground of refusal to bargain collectively. entitled to the benefits under the CBA. the existing CBA in its entirety continues to have legal effect. NLRC: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Akilit and 350 others". with the inclusion of the federation president in the union’s negotiating panel. However. the negotiations pushed through.. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER vs. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against nonmembers. If at all. the suggestion should be construed as part of the normal relations and innocent communications which are all part of the friendly relations between the union and the bank. Therefore. the same was allegedly met with stiff resistance by petitioner Company. blue sky-bargaining H: NO ULP in either side -Duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or to require the making of a concession 60. Court has held that when a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer. it must be understood as encompassing all the terms and conditions in the said agreement. HELD: It is clear from the above provision of law that until a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has been executed by and between the parties. RAB-IX-033482.was not considered ULP. NLRC G. especially considering that such was undertaken previous to the commencement of the negotiation and simultaneously with the manager’s suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its negotiating panel. even if they subsequently become members of the bargaining unit. that a laborer can claim benefits from the CBA entered into between the company and the union of which he is a member at the 8 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran.

NLRC issued a resolution declaring that the 186 excluded employees as part of the existing rank-andfile bargaining unit and were. SMC UNION vs. notwithstanding such manifestation. and (b) the CBA proposals submitted by the NFL as the CBA. NFL started to negotiate for better terms and conditions of employment but the same was allegedly rejected by Petitioner Company. During the negotiation the petitioner union insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include the employees of the spun-off corporations. and. this Court has held that when a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union and the employer. 11262 19 September 1996 FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation Employees Union entered into a CBA with private respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC). the benefits under the CBA in the instant case should be extended to those employees who only became such after 1984. HON.time of the conclusion of the agreement. To exclude them would constitute undue discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to under a new CBA to which they would have been parties. SHALL AUTHOMATICALLY 9 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. and the terms of the agreement shall be for 5 years. the existing CBA in its entirety. However. It is clear from Article 253 that until a new CBA has been executed. In the case at bar. even beyond the three-year period provided by law? B) Are employees hired after the stipulated term of a CBA entitled to the benefits provided thereunder? HELD: 1) YES. They claimed that NFL's misrepresentations had precluded them from appealing their exclusion. entitled to the benefits under the CBA. a "Petition for Relief" was filed in behalf of 186 of the private respondents who claimed that they were wrongfully excluded from enjoying said benefits since the agreement with NFL and petitioner Company limited the CBA's implementation to only the 142 rankand-file employees enumerated. CONFESOR G.R. FACTS: The National Federation of Labor (NFL) was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of petitioner Company. even the non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. in the absence of a new CBA. Consequently. Hence instant petition. It provides that the agreement SHALL EMAIN IN FORCE AND EFFECTIVE until 1992. The automatic renewal clause provided for by the law. WON it’s proper for being filed several months after allowable period). therefore. which is deemed incorporated in all CBA's. To rule otherwise would be to create a gap during which no agreement would govern. the case was considered closed following NFL's manifestation that it will no longer appeal said order. In the same vein. after he has resigned from the said union. In a long line of cases. the private respondents. But the CBA remain in forced and effective. The NLRC set aside dismissal orders for lack of legal basis. A careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the instant case warrants liberality in the application of technical rules and procedure. On the other hand the SMC contended that the members or employees WHO HAD MOVED TO MAGNOLIA AND SMFI. It sustained earlier NLRC resolution IFO the respondents. As such. from the time the old contract expired to the time a new agreement shall have been entered into. including original 186 filed individual money claims but Villena dismissed these cases. no new agreement had been entered into after the CBA's stipulated term. when it entertained the petition for relief. so that the former was prompted to file a complaint for ULP. from 1989 to 1992. Since in this particular case. B) YES. The LA issued an order declaring (a) petitioner Company guilty of ULP. and. which is the MAGNOLIA and SMFI and that the renegotiation terms of the CBA shall be effective ONLY for the remaining period of 2 years. Meanwhile. the parties are duty-bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. it is only fair and just that the employees hired thereafter be included in the existing CBA. the employees from the year 1985 onwards would be deprived of a substantial amount of monetary benefits which runs contrary to the very intent and purpose of Articles 253 and 253-A of the Labor Code which is to curb labor unrest and to promote industrial peace. the SMC would undergo with reconstructing. Year 3 | UPang . the LA the the the ISSUES: 1) Procedural – WON the Petition for Relief is proper (even if treated as an appeal. 2) A) Substantive . provides the reason why the new CBA can only be given a prospective effect. No. Petitioner Company complied with the LA’s order. Petitioner’s appeal— and later certiorari—were both dismissed. 2) A) YES. the magnolia and the Feeds and livestock Division were spunoff and become two separate and distinct corporation.May the term of a CBA as to its economic provisions be extended beyond the term expressly stipulated therein. For purposes of business expansion. continued to have legal effect. 61.

Existing CBA included all four divisions. The interests of the employees in different companies would perforce differ. but still no settlement was reached. SMC contended that the members/employees who had moved to Magnolia and SMFI automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining unit at the SMC. Petitioner-union declared a deadlock on 29 September 1990. On 2 October 1992. The nature of the products and sales of business may require diff. (RE CORPORATE ENTITIES) Held: The duration of the renegotiated terms of the CBS shall be effective for three years. and thus no outside union could enter the establishment within five years and challenge the status of the incumbent union as the exclusive bargaining agent.which is technically the year after the five-year period of the representation aspect . The Union insisted that the employees of the spun-off corporations were still to be considered as part of the appropriate bargaining unit. Considering the spin-off. The framers of the law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability. :) 10 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. Under this provision. and that such CBA shall over only the employees of SMC and not of Magnolia and SMFI.ASSUMING THE BARGAINING AGENT IS CHANGED AFTER THE FIVEYEAR PERIOD – becomes a sort of adjustment period of “industrial peace” so as to let the management and the new agent to get to know each other. Issues: W/N the duration of the renegotiated terms of the CBA is to be effective for three years or for only two years W/N the bargaining unit of SMC includes also the employees of the Magnolia and SMFI. Magnolia with manufacturing and processing of dairy products.gist of the quoted deliberations. During the renewal or renegotiation for two years on the economic provisions. and all other provisions of the CBA shall be negotiated not later than three years after its execution. SMC management informed its employees that the company would undergo a restructuring 1 October 1991 – the Magnolia and the Feeds & Livestocks Divisions were spun-off and became two separate and distinct corporations: Magnolia Corporation and San Miguel Foods. Facts: 28 June 1990: SMCEU-PTGWO entered into a CBA with SMC to take effect upon the expiration of the previous CBA or on 30 June 1989. SMCEUPTGWO (petitioner-union) insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include the employees of the spun-off corporations. to their needs and working conditions. The terms of the CBA also provided that insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. different volumes of work and working conditions. 13 August 1991: In a letter.CEASED TO BE PART OF THE BARGAINING UNIT at the SMC. Year 3 | UPang . for which the duration shall be for a term of 3 years or until 30 June 1992. based on Article 253-A of the Labor Code. This way. wages. HELD: Spin-off of Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Companies from the San Miguel Corporation as separate corporate entities. The NCMB conducted preventive mediation upon the request of SMC. Representation aspect: refers to the identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned.” The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Inc. and the renegotiated terms should be effective for three years in accordance with Article 253-A of the Labor Code. . Secretary of Labor issued the assailed order directing that the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective for a period of three years from 30 June 1992. SMC is engaged in beer manufacturing. and that the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective only for the remaining period of two years or until 30 June 1994. and that the CBA shall be effective for 3years in accordance with ART. The CBA was renegotiated after 30 June 1992. a Notice of Strike was filed against SMC. negotiate. a CBA has a term of five years as far as the representation aspect is concerned. spin-off corporations were already in existence. SM Foods with production of feeds and processing of chicken. Skills which must necessarily be commensurated by different compensation packages. petitioner union declared a deadlock and filed a notice of strike. the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of work. the term of the CBA shall be for five years: from 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1994. after which several conciliation meetings were held. hours of work and other conditions of employment. but no settlement was arrived at. A strike vote was conducted which resulted in a “yes vote. the last year of the RENEGOTIATED terms. etc. It would then be best to have separate bargaining units for different companies where the employees can bargain separately accdg.253-A Unable to agree with these issues of bargaining unit and duration of the CBA.

wages. and hence. ISSUE: WON the PAL-PALEA agreement stipulating the suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA unconstitutional and contrary to public policy HELD: No. It was also PALEA that voluntarily opted for the 10-year suspension of the CBA. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement.PALEA Agreement which provided for among others the suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA for a period of ten (10) years. PALEA Members rejected the offer. provided the certain safeguards are in place. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote industrial peace at PAL during its rehabilitation. In the instant case. Nothing in Article 253-A. and FASAP. Year 3 | UPang . In protest to such action PALEA went on strike which when PAL and PALEA agreed to a more systematic reduction in PAL’s work force and the payment of separation benefits to all retrenched employees. as the exclusive bargaining agent of PAL’s ground employees. The other is to assign specific timetables wherein negotiations become a matter of right and requirement. PALEA sought the intervention of the Office of the President in immediately convening the parties. G. the bargaining unit of SMC excludes the employees of Magnolia and SMFI. the PAL management. after all. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. includes the right to suspend it. Faced with bankruptcy. The nature of their products and scales of business may require different skills which must necessarily be commensurated by different compensation packages. the courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. The transformation of the companies was a management prerogative and business judgments which the courts cannot look into unless it is contrary to law. A CBA is “a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages. The right to free collective bargaining. that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. hours of work and other conditions of employment. 11 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. PETITION WAS DISMISSED.Subsequently. In construing a CBA. including the SEC under the direction of the Inter- Agency Task Force. prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same. Article 253-A has a two-fold purpose. RIVERA v.” The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a climate of a sound and stable industrial peace. No. rehabilitation was no longer feasible. The assailed PAL-PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation faced by the employer. PAL management submitted to the Task Force an offer by Lucio Tan. PAL’s financial situation went from bad to worse. but preventing the latter’s closure. Considering the spin-offs. Either case was the union’s exercise of its right to collective bargaining. to prevent the imminent closure of PAL. We find no conflict between said agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor Code. with the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at PAL. it was PALEA. Magnolia and SMFI became distinct entities with separate juridical personalities In determining an appropriate bargaining unit.R. the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. One is to promote industrial stability and predictability. the airline had no alternative but to close shop.After several negotiations a the questioned PAL. ESPIRITU. PAL adopted a rehabilitation plan and downsized its labor force by more than one-third. 62. 135547 23 January 2002 FACTS: As a result of a three week strike staged by PAL pilots affiliated with the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) PAL which was already financially beleaguered suffered serious losses. the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of work. President Estrada thru AO 16 created an Inter-Agency Task Force to address the problems of PAL. Chairman a plan to transfer shares of stock to its employees which has a provision regarding the suspension of the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) for 10 years. ALPAP. said agreement satisfies the first purpose of Article 253-A. The employees sought to be represented must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they performed. PALEA. public policy or morals.No. PAL informed the Task Force that it was shutting down its operations because given its labor problems.

No. a petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed to SC. they assist and act in a confidential capacity to. NLRC G. Then on the 2nd to 5th CBA. temporary employees and security personnel. confidential employees and heads of small units. NLRC also held that LA’s decision as to the exclusion of some employees is contrary to law for they are not mentioned as among those to be excluded from the bargaining unit. ISSUES: 1. or have access to confidential matters of.R. asserting that LA’s directive of carrying-out a referendum is erroneous as it arrogates unto said employees the right to define what the law means. LA’s decision was appealed to NLRC. 245) After its MR was denied. vs. sales personnel and confidential employees in the coverage of the bargaining unit would be submitted for arbitration. As the parties failed to agree on a voluntary arbitrator. PIDI had 6 CBA’s with PEO-FFW. the Globe Doctrine finds no application. they should be allowed to determine for themselves what union to join or form. persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. are confidential employees. He also directed that service engineers and sales representatives conduct a referendum among themselves. assist or join a labor union equally applies to them. the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form. WON NLRC committed abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that service engineers. and the exercised voluntary modes in settling disputes. with the exception of the service engineers and the sales force personnel. NOTE: GLOBE DOCTRINE . LA Amansec held that the Division Secretaries and all Staff of general management. On the main issue raised before Us. all Staff of General Management. PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. Their classification as such is not seriously disputed by PEO-FFW. the five (5) previous CBAs between PIDI and PEO-FFW explicitly considered them as confidential employees. By the very nature of their functions. On its 6th CBA. were specifically excluded from the bargaining unit. 88957 25 June 1992 FACTS: Since 1971. this doctrine applies only in instances of evenly balanced claims by competitive groups for the right to be established as the bargaining unit. promoted the shared responsibility between workers and employers." In the first place. the BLR endorsed the petition to the Executive Labor Arbiter of the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. security guards. financial system are confidential employees and as such are hereby deemed excluded in the bargaining unit. the sales force. it was agreed upon that the subject of inclusion or exclusion of service engineers. Sales Force. that is. Suffice it to state here that since the only issue is the subject employees' inclusion in or exclusion from the bargaining unit in question. secretaries of audit. INC. 21 which do not obtain in this case.(under Art. it is quite obvious that respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter and in decreeing that PIDI's "Service Engineers. personnel and industrial relations department. together with the managerial employees. including conciliation to foster industrial peace. 12 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. Secretaries of Audit. WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not applying the time honored globe doctrine? RULING: (1)Yes.The acts of public respondents in sanctioning the 10-year suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA did not contravene the “protection to labor” policy of the Constitution. The 1st CBA excludes confidential employees. all these employees." Disposition petition is DISMISSED. 12As such. with the latter reversing the former’s decision. l (2) No. EDP and Financial Systems are included within the rank and file bargaining unit. managerial employees and security personnel only. temporary employees and sales representatives from the bargaining unit. Personnel and Industrial Relations Department. and PIDI never questioned the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter. division secretaries. EDP. The agreement afforded full protection to labor. 63. Year 3 | UPang . sales representatives and confidential employees of petitioner are qualified to be part of the existing bargaining unit? 2. determining the proper bargaining unit the express will or desire of the employees shall be considered.

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE PHILS (NACUSIP) vs. In order to obviate friction and tension. particularly on wage increases. the rule prohibits the filing of a petition for certification election during the existence of a CBA except within the freedom period. with a representative of the Department of Labor and Employment. When the CBA expired. Hence. However. a deadlock in negotiation ensued on the matter of wage increases and optional retirement. when the said agreement is about to expire. acting as chairman. The principal purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the 13 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. The “Deadlock Bar” Rule simply provides that a petition for certification election can only be entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. This rule simply provides that a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty days prior to the expiry date of an existing collective bargaining agreement.R. FERRER-CALLEJA G. 89609 27 January 1992 FACTS: Dacongcogon Sugar and Rice Milling Co. No. Otherwise put. obviously. Med-Arbiter: denied the Motion to Dismiss and direct the conduct of a certification election among rank-and-file employees BLR: set aside the order of the Med-Arbiter and ruled in favor of respondent ISSUE: WON the discretion? BLR committed grave abuse of HELD: NO. and other terms and conditions of employment. is to ensure stability in the relationships of the workers and the management by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period.e. Petition Denied. The purpose. It is a rule in this jurisdiction that only a certified CBA — i. Respondent NSFW moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition was filed out of time and that there is a deadlocked of CBA negotiation. 64. Petitioner filed filed a “petition for direct certification or certification election” among the rank and file workers of Dacongcogon. it was extended for another 3 years with reservation to negotiate for its amendment. entered into a CBA with respondent National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW).management. Year 3 | UPang . a Labor Management Council was set up and convened. an agreement duly certified by the BLR may serve as a bar to certification elections. the parties agreed on a suspension to provide a cooling-off period to give them time to evaluate and further study their positions.. as it is called. HON. hours of work. to resolve the issues.