You are on page 1of 3

TOPIC: Bargaining History the rank and file employees/workers of Belyca Corporation

CASE: National Association of Free Trade Union (NAFLU) vs (Livestock and Agro-Division). But petitioner contends that
Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union the bargaining unit must include all the workers in its
(MALDECO)
integrated business concerns ranging from piggery, poultry,
CITATION: GR No. 79526. December 21, 1990
to supermarts and cinemas so as not to split an otherwise
Petitioner alleges that the employer MALDECO was single bargaining unit into fragmented bargaining units.
composed of two bargaining units, the Sawmill Division in Issue:
Butuan City and the Logging Division in Zapanta Valley, whether or not the proposed bargaining unit is an
Kitcharao, Agusan Norte, about 80 kilometers distant from appropriate bargaining unit.
each other. They had two separate CBA's. from 1979-1985, Held:
the Ministry of Labor and Employment recognized the It is beyond question that the employees of the livestock and
existence of two separate bargaining unit at MALDECO, one agro division of petitioner corporation perform work entirely
for its Logging Division and another for its Sawmill Division. different from those performed by employees in the
supermarts and cinema. Among others, the noted difference
But significantly, out of 201 employees of MALDECO, 175
are: their working conditions, hours of work, rates of pay,
consented and supported the petition for certification
election, thereby confirming their desire for just one including the categories of their positions and employment
bargaining representative. status. As stated by petitioner corporation in its position
paper, due to the nature of the business in which its
Moreover, while the existence of a bargaining history is a livestock-agro division is engaged very few of its employees
factor that may be reckoned with in determining the in the division are permanent, the overwhelming majority of
appropriate bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees.
conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of
Definitely, they have very little in common with the
grouping its community or mutuality of interests. This is so
because "the basic test of asserted bargaining unit's employees of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the
acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the employees of petitioner in its integrated business concerns
combination which will best assure to all employees the cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of
exercise of their collective bargaining rights". constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of interest.
Undeniably, the rank and file employees of the livestock-agro
Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the
division fully constitute a bargaining unit that satisfies both
employers of the Sawmill Division and the Logging Division.
Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the requirements of classification according to employment
other in the same way that the company needs them both. status and of the substantial similarity of work and duties
There may be difference as to the nature o their individual which will ultimately assure its members the exercise of their
assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant collective bargaining rights.
the formation af a separate bargaining unit.
TOPIC: Bargaining History
CASE: Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union vs. Court of KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (KAMPIL-
Industrial Relations KATIPUNAN) vs. TRAJANO
CITATION: GR No. 14656. November 29, 1960 G.R. No. 75810 September 9, 1991

FACTS: Facts:
February 27, 1981, the National Federation of Labor Unions
On March 25, 1956, the Industrial Court held a certification (NAFLU) was declared the exclusive bargaining
election to determine which of the two contending labor representative of all rank-and-file employees of Viron
unions shall be the sole collective bargaining agent of San Garments Manufacturing Co., Inc. (VIRON).
Carlos Milling Co., the two unions are: Philippine Land-Air-Sea April 11, 1985, another union, the Kaisahan ng
(PLASLU) and Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines Manggagawang Pilipino KAMPIL Katipunan filed with the
(AWA).
Bureau of Labor Relations a petition for certification election
Prior to the election AWA filed an urgent motion to exclude among the employees of VIRON. The petition allegedly
144 employees from participating in the election. The motion counted with the support of more than thirty percent (30%)
however is denied. of the workers at VIRON.
NAFLU opposed the petition. The Med-Arbiter however
After the election and within 72 hours after such election, ordered, on June 14, 1985, that a certification election be
AWA filed a petition contesting the election on the ground of held at VIRON as prayed for, after ascertaining that KAMPIL
ineligibility of 148 votes which is challenged. The Industrial had complied with all the requirements of law and that since
Court ordered that all the challenged be opened and
the certification of NAFLU as sole bargaining representative
canvassed. PLASLU moved for reconsideration which was
however denied. Adding the votes to the results of the in 1981, no collective bargaining agreement had been
certification election the final count was: AWA=377 votes and executed between it and VIRON.
PLASLU=239. Hence, the petition of PLASLU for review by NAFLU appealed. It contended that at the time the petition
certiorari of the order of the CIR. for certification election was filed on April 11, 1985, it was in
process of collective bargaining with VIRON; that there was in
ISSUE: WON casual employees and those employed on day to fact a deadlock in the negotiations which had prompted it to
day basis must be considered separate to the regular file a notice of strike; and that these circumstances
employees.
constituted a bar to the petition for election.
Issue:
RULING:
Whether or not KAMPIL's petition for certification
Yes. The employees whose vote were challenged wore hired election is barred because, before its filing, a bargaining
on temporary or casual basis and had work of a different deadlock between VIRON and NAFLU, had been
nature from those of the laborers permitted to vote in the submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had
certification election. become the subject of a valid notice of strike or
lockout.
The most efficacious bargaining unit is one which comprised Held:
of constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of It seems fairly certain that prior to the filing of the petition for
interest. This is so because the basic test of a bargaining election in this case, there was no such "bargaining
unit's acceptability whether it will best secure to all
employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. deadlock ... (which) had been submitted to conciliation or
Hence, piece workers employed on casual basis or day to day arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of
basis cannot considered to have such mutuality of interest as strike or lockout." To be sure, there are in the record
to justify their inclusion in a bargaining unit. assertions by NAFLU that its attempts to bring VIRON to the
negotiation table had been unsuccessful because of the
BELYCA CORPORATION vs. FERRER CALLEJA latter's recalcitrance and unfulfilled promises to bargain
G.R. No. 77395 November 29, 1988 collectively; but there is no proof that it had taken any action
Facts:
to legally coerce VIRON to comply with its statutory duty to
June 3, 1986, Associated Labor Union (ALU)-TUCP, a
bargain collectively. It could have charged VIRON with unfair
legitimate labor organization filed a petition for direct
labor practice; but it did not. It could have gone on a
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all
legitimate strike in protest against VIRON's refusal to bargain
collectively and compel it to do so; but it did not. There are The Labor Arbiter decided the case solely on the merits of
assertions by NAFLU, too, that its attempts to bargain the complaint. Nowhere in the Decision is made mention of
collectively had been delayed by continuing challenges to or reference to the issue of jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
the resolution pronouncing it the sole bargaining Issue:
representative in VIRON; but there is no adequate Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to
substantiation thereof, or of how it did in fact prevent hear the case.
Held:
initiation of the bargaining process between it and VIRON.
The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and Voluntary Arbitrator or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is clearly defined and
LMG CHEMICALS CORPORATION vs. DOLE specifically delineated under Articles 217, 261 and 262 of the
G.R. No. 127422 April 17, 2001 Labor Code. The cited provisions of law cannot be read in
isolation or separately. They must be read as a whole and
Facts:
LMG Chemicals Corporation is engaged in the manufacture each Article of the Code reconciled one with the other. An
and sale of various kinds of chemical substances. It has three analysis of the provisions of Articles 217, 261, and 262
divisions, namely: the Organic Division, Inorganic Division indicates, that:
1. The jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and Voluntary
and the Pinamucan Bulk Carriers. There are two unions within
Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases
petitioner's Inorganic Division. One union represents the daily
enumerated in Articles 217, 261 and 262, can possibly
paid employees and the other union represents the monthly
include money claims in one form or another.
paid employees. Chemical Workers Union, respondent, is a
2. The cases where the Labor Arbiters have original and
duly registered labor organization acting as the collective
exclusive jurisdiction are enumerated in Article 217, and that
bargaining agent of all the daily paid employees of
of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in
petitioner's Inorganic Division.
Article 261.
December 1995, the petitioner and the respondent started
3. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is
negotiation for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
qualified by an exception as indicated in the introductory
as their old CBA was about to expire. They were able to agree
sentence of Article 217 (a), to wit:
on the political provisions of the new CBA, but no agreement Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters . . .
was reached on the issue of wage increase. The economic (a) Except as otherwise provided under this
issues were not also settled. Code the Labor Arbiter shall have original
With the CBA negotiations at a deadlock, despite several
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
conferences and efforts of the designated conciliator-
decide . . . the following cases involving all
mediator, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.
workers. . . .
Secretary of Labor and Employment, finding the instant labor The phrase "Except as otherwise provided under this Code"
dispute impressed with national interest, assumed refers to the following exceptions:
jurisdiction over the same. A. Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor
October 7, 1996, the Secretary of Labor and Employment Arbiters . . .
issued the first assailed order, increasing the Company's xxx xxx xxx
offer of P135 per day wage to P140 per (day) and also . the (c) Cases arising from the interpretation or
new Collective Bargaining Agreement which the parties will implementation of collective bargaining
sign pursuant to this Order shall retroact to January 1, 1996. agreement and those arising from the
Issue: interpretation or enforcement of company
Whether or not the SOLE committed grave abuse of procedure/policies shall be disposed of by
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in decreeing the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to
that the CBA to be signed by the parties shall retroact to the grievance machinery and voluntary
Jan. 1, 1996. arbitrator as may be provided in said
Held:
agreement.
It must be emphasized that respondent Secretary assumed
B. Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor
jurisdiction over the dispute because it is impressed with
disputes. The Voluntary Arbitrator or
national interest. As noted by the Secretary, "the petitioner
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
corporation was then supplying the sulfate requirements of
agreement of the parties, shall also hear
MWSS as well as the sulfuric acid of NAPOCOR, and
and decide all other labor disputes
consequently, the continuation of the strike would seriously
including unfair labor practices and
affect the water supply of Metro Manila and the power supply
bargaining deadlocks.
of the Luzon Grid." Such authority of the Secretary to assume Parenthetically, the original and exclusive
jurisdiction carries with it the power to determine the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217
retroactivity of the parties' CBA. (c), for money claims is limited only to those arising
It is well settled in our jurisprudence that the authority of the
from statutes or contracts other than a Collective
Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
Bargaining Agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator or
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and
indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all
exclusive jurisdiction over money claims "arising
questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is
from the interpretation or implementation of the
plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to
Collective Bargaining Agreement and, those arising
effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary
from the interpretation or enforcement of company
dispute.
personnel policies", under Article 261.
4. The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of
SAN JOSE vs. NLRC and OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES,
Voluntary Arbitrators is provided for in Arts. 261 and 262 of
INC.
G.R. No. 121227 August 17, 1998 the Labor Code as indicated above.
1. A close reading of Article 261 indicates that the original
Facts: and exclusive jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators is limited only to:
. . . unresolved grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of the
G O ES T O S C - Collective Bargaining Agreement and those
PE T IT IO N FO R
L A 'S N LR C C ERT IO R A R I arising from the interpretation or
D EC IS IO N R E V ER S ED
W /O FIL IN G A N enforcement of company personnel policies
M R FIR S T . . . Accordingly, violations of a collective
bargaining agreement, except those which
Complainant, in his position paper states that he was hired
are gross in character, shall no longer be
sometime in July 1980 as a stevedore continuously until he
treated as unfair labor practice and shall be
was advised in April 1991 to retire from service considering
resolved as grievances under the Collective
that he already reached 65 years old; that accordingly, he did
Bargaining Agreement. . . . .
apply for retirement and was paid P3,156.39 for retirement
pay.
2. Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, month pay.
however, can exercise jurisdiction over any and all disputes and 13th
between an employer and a union and/or individual worker leave pay
as provided for in Article 262. incentive
Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor MR denied service
disputes. The voluntary arbitrator or dismissed. holiday pay,
panel of voluntary arbitrators, upon
not been claims for
had they allowed
agreement of the parties, shall also hear received differential;
and decide all other labor disputes have nightshift
including unfair labor practices and s should and
bargaining deadlocks. respondent rest days
It must be emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Voluntary the for holiday,
Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators under Article 262 all benefits premium pay
must be voluntarily conferred upon by both labor and inclusive of denied backwages ,
backwages, MR also w/o
management. The labor disputes referred to in the same pay full decision reinstated
Article 262 can include all those disputes mentioned in NLRC's LA's dismissal
Article 217 over which the Labor Arbiter has original and affirmed affirmed no illegal
exclusive jurisdiction.
As shown in the above contextual and wholistic analysis of
CA NLRC LA
Articles 217, 261, and 262 of the Labor Code, the National
Labor Relations Commission correctly ruled that the Labor
Arbiter had no jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioner's
money-claim-underpayment of retirement benefits, as the
controversy between the parties involved an issue "arising
from the interpretation or implementation" of a provision of
the collective bargaining agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator Issues:
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has original and exclusive Whether or not CA erred and committed grave
jurisdiction over the controversy under Article 261 of the abuse of discretion in ordering the
reinstatement of respondents to their former
Labor Code, and not the Labor Arbiter.
positions which were no longer existing because
To recapitulate; the Court hereby rules
its findings of facts are premised on
1. That the National Labor Relations Commission correctly
misappreciation of facts.
ruled that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case, Held:
because the case involved an issue "arising from the Petitioners are misguided. They forgot that there are two types of
interpretation or implementation" of a Collective Bargaining employees in the construction industry. The first is referred to as
Agreement; project employees or those employed in connection with a
2. That the appeal to the National Labor Relations particular construction project or phase thereof and such
Commission was filed within the reglementary period and employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the
that the appeal bond was filed; and project to which they are assigned. The second is known as non-
3. That we adopt the computation formula for the retirement project employees or those employed without reference to any
particular construction project or phase of a project.
benefits by the Labor Arbiter, and the basis thereof, The
The second category is where respondents are classified. As such
respondent must therefore pay the petitioner the additional they are regular employees of petitioners. It is clear from the
amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Three records of the case that when one project is completed,
and Seventy Centavos P25,443.70) Pesos. respondents were automatically transferred to the next project
awarded to petitioners. There was no employment agreement
Exodus International Construction Corp., et al. vs. given to respondents which clearly spelled out the duration of their
Guillermo Biscocho, et al. employment, the specific work to be performed and that such is
G.R. No. 166109 February 23, 2011 made clear to them at the time of hiring. It is now too late for
petitioners to claim that respondents are project employees whose
employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the
Facts: project to which they are assigned.
Petitioner Exodus International Construction Corporation Nonetheless, assuming that respondents were initially hired as
(Exodus) is a duly licensed labor contractor for the painting of project employees, petitioners must be reminded of our ruling in
residential houses, condominium units and commercial buildings. Maraguinot, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission that [a]
February 1, 1999, Exodus obtained from Dutch Boy Philippines, Inc. project employee x x x may acquire the status of a regular
(Dutch Boy) a contract for the painting of the Imperial Sky Garden employee when the following [factors] concur:
located at Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila. On July 28, 1999, Dutch 1. There is a continuous rehiring of project employees
Boy awarded another contract to Exodus for the painting of Pacific even after cessation of a project; and
Plaza Towers in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. 2. The tasks performed by the alleged project
In the furtherance of its business, Exodus hired employee are vital, necessary and indespensable to
respondents (Guillermo Biscocho, Fernando Pereda, Ferdinand the usual business or trade of the employer.
Mariano, Gregorio S. Bellita, Miguel B. Bobillo) as painters on In this case, the evidence on record shows that respondents were
different dates. employed and assigned continuously to the various projects of
November 27, 2000, Guillermo, Fernando, Ferdinand, and petitioners. As painters, they performed activities which were
Miguel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of necessary and desirable in the usual business of petitioners, who
holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay and night- are engaged in subcontracting jobs for painting of residential units,
shift differential pay. condominium and commercial buildings. As regular employees,
respondents are entitled to be reinstated without loss of seniority
rights.
In cases where there is no evidence of dismissal, the
remedy is reinstatement but without backwages. In this case,
both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC made a finding that there was
no dismissal much less an illegal one. It is settled that factual
findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect
and finality so long as these are supported by substantial
evidence.