Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Facts:
Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation is engaged
in the business of manufacturing wool and yarn carpets
and rugs. The Corporation also had 100% equity
investments in the following corporations: Pacific Carpet
Mills Corporation (PCMC-USA) which sold carpets and
mats on wholesale basis; Pacific Carpet Manufacturing
Corporation (PCMC-Clark) which manufactured handtufted and machine-tufted carpets and rugs; and the
Philippine Woolen Spinning Corporation (PWSC) which
manufactured wool yarn. The Corporation also owned
17.95% of the shares of stocks in DI Security and General
Services, Inc., and 2.20% of such shares in the Manila
Peninsula Hotel, Inc. The Corporation employed 473
employees, 355 of whom were members of the sole
bargaining unit of the employees therein, the Philippine
Carpet Employees Association (Union for brevity).
In a letter dated February 10, 2004 addressed to the
Corporations Assistant Vice President for Administration,
Manuel Ike Diaz, the Union proposed the holding of a
conference between representatives of the Union and the
Corporation on February 24, 2004, to commence
negotiations. Appended to the letter were proposals on
revisions of the previous CBA.
The Corporation did not respond to the letter. Diaz issued
a Memorandum informing all employees that a
comprehensive cost reduction program would be
implemented by the Corporation on April 15, 2004, "on
account of depressed business conditions brought about
by the currency crisis in Southeast Asia, the Middle East
war and the 9/11 incident in the United States of America.
Of the 88 employees who were terminated from
employment, 77 were Union members, including Edgardo
Villanueva, who was elected Union officer after the
personnel reduction program commenced.
Frustrated at the Corporations reason for retrenchment,
the Union filed a notice of strike with the DOLE.
Negotiations before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board ensued, but the Corporation stood pat on
its stance for a moratorium on increases in wages and
benefits. The Union rejected this and accused the
Corporation of union busting, as 77 of its members
were dismissed.
The Union filed a petitionwith the DOLE for the Secretary
of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute involving economic issues on wage
increases and certain benefits and non-economic issues
such as scope of bargaining unit and on the issue of
unfair labor practice.
The Union claimed that there was no valid economic
reason to retrench employees, and that a "slump" in
demand of the Corporations products was not a valid
ground to dismiss employees. The Union also charged the
Corporation of resorting to a sinister scheme of rechanneling its carpet business to its wholly owned
subsidiary, PCMC-Clark, while negotiations for a new CBA
were ongoing. According to the Union, this was also
to justify the dismissal of the 77 Union members
and bust the Union in the process. The Union
insisted that the Corporation was guilty of unfair
labor practice.
The Union maintained that in dismissing its employees,
the Corporation violated the mandatory 30-day notice
rule because such employees received the notice of
termination
on
March
13,
2004
(Saturday),
Issue:
Whether or not St. John Colleges is guilty of unfair labor
practice through its act of closing the academy.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
1. Closure. The closure was done to defeat the parties
agreement to refer the labor dispute to the SOLE; to
unilaterally end the bargaining deadlock; to render
nugatory any decision of the SOLE; and to circumvent the
Unions right to collective bargaining and its members
right to security of tenure.
Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the following
requisites must concur for a valid closure of the business:
(1) serving a written notice on the workers at least one
(1) month before the intended date thereof; (2) serving a
notice with the DOLE one month before the taking effect
of the closure; (3) payment of separation pay equivalent
to one (1) month or at least one half (1/2) month pay for
First, the fact that after one year from the time it closed
its high school, SJCI opened a college and elementary
department, and reopened its high school department
showed that it never intended to cease operating as an
educational institution. Second, there is evidence on
record contesting the alleged reason of SJCI for reopening
the
On
appeal,
to
the
NLRC
by
"Motion
for
Reconsideration/Appeal",
such
was
granted
and
accordingly ordered the Labor Arbiter to continue the
proceedings on the Unions complaint. Hence, SMFI filed a
petition for certiorari with SC which they referred the case
to the CA pursuant to St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC.
Ruling:
The petition is bereft of merit. Hence, we deny the
Petition.
Dismissed for issues raised which are questions of
facts.
First, an examination of the issues raised by petitioner
reveals that they are questions of fact. The issues
raised, i.e., whether JLBP is an independent contractor,
whether CCBPIs contracting-out of jobs to JLBP amounted
to unfair labor practice, and whether such action was a
valid exercise of management prerogative, call for a reexamination of evidence, which is not within the ambit of
this Courts jurisdiction.
Moreover, factual findings of the NLRC, an administrative
agency deemed to have acquired expertise in matters
within its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only
respect but finality especially when such factual findings
are affirmed by the CA.
The companys action to contract did not
constitute unfair labor practice as this was not
directed
at
the
members
right
to
selforganization.
Second, the NLRC found and the same was sustained by
the CA that the companys action to contract-out the
services and functions performed by Union members did
not constitute unfair labor practice as this was not
directed at the members right to self-organization.
Article 248 of the Labor Code provides: It shall be
unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following
unfair labor practices:
x x x (c) To contract out services or functions
being performed by union members when such
will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
xxx
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the
workers right to organize. The prohibited acts are
related to the workers right to self-organization and to
the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts,
even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices.
Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was
unable to prove its charge of unfair labor practice. It was
the Union that had the burden of adducing substantial
evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor
practice, which burden it failed to discharge.
respondents
Facts:
Respondent Manila Mining Corporation (MMC) is a
publicly-listed corporation engaged in large-scale mining
for gold and copper ore. MMC is required by law to
maintain a tailings containment facility to store the waste
material
generated
by
its
mining
operations.
Consequently, MMC constructed several tailings dams to
treat and store its waste materials. One of these dams it
constructed in 1993 and was operated under a permit
issued by the DENR, through its Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB) in Butuan City, Agusan del
Norte.
benefits.
Lastly, the Company kept on harping that both the VA and
the CA conceded that its engagement of contractual
workers from PESO was a valid exercise of management
prerogative. It is confused. To emphasize, declaring that a
particular act falls within the concept of management
prerogative is significantly different from acknowledging
that such act is a valid exercise thereof. What the VA and
the CA correctly ruled was that the Company's act of
contracting out/outsourcing is within the purview of
management prerogative. Both did not say, however, that
such act is a valid exercise thereof. Obviously, this is due
to the recognition that the CBA provisions agreed upon by
the Company and the Union delimit the free exercise of
management prerogative pertaining to the hiring of
contractual employees. Indeed, the VA opined that "the
right of the management to outsource parts of its
operations is not totally eliminated but is merely limited
by the CBA," while the CA held that "[t]his management
prerogative of contracting out services, however, is not
without limitation. . . . [These] categories of employees
particularly with respect to casual employees [serve] as
limitation to [the Company's] prerogative to outsource
parts of its operations especially when hiring contractual
employees."
A collective bargaining agreement is the law between the
parties:
It is familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that
the CBA is the law between the parties and they are
obliged to comply with its provisions. We said so in Honda
Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa
Honda:
A collective bargaining agreement or CBA refers to the
negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
organization and the employer concerning wages, hours
of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
in a bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a
CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient provided these
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy. Thus, where the CBA is clear and
unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties
and compliance therewith is mandated by the express
policy of the law.
Moreover, if the terms of a contract, as in a CBA,
are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of
the contracting parties, the literal meaning of their
stipulations shall control.
Ruling:
As to the issue of ULP, petitioners argument is
utterly without merit.
In the case at bench, petitioners are being accused of
violations of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 257
(formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code,to wit:
Article
257.
Unfair
labor
practices
of
employers.It shall be unlawful for an employer
to commit any of the following unfair labor
practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization;
xxxx
(c) To contract out services or functions
being performed by union members
when such will interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization;
xxxx
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages,
hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership
in any labor organization.
xxx
The questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1) sponsoring
a field trip to Zambales for its employees, to the
exclusion of union members, before the scheduled
certification election; 2) the active campaign by the sales
officer of petitioners against the union prevailing as a
bargaining agent during the field trip; 3) escorting its
employees after the field trip to the polling center; 4) the
continuous
hiring
of
subcontractors
performing
respondents functions; 5) assigning union members to
the Cabangan site to work as grass cutters; and 6) the
enforcement of work on a rotational basis for union
members, all reek of interference on the part of
petitioners.
Indubitably, the various acts of petitioners, taken
together, reasonably support an inference that, indeed,
such were all orchestrated to restrict respondents free
exercise of their right to self-organization. The Court is of
the considered view that petitioners undisputed actions
prior and immediately before the scheduled certification
election, while seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled in
the affairs of its employees in selecting their exclusive
bargaining representative.