Maria Gladys B.

Orlino

Labor Relations

FILCRO

SMCEU-PTGWD(petitioner-union) vs Hon. Ma. Nieves D. Confesor

G.R No. 111262 September 19, 1996

Facts:

The petitioner union renegotiated its CBA with the San Miguel Corportation. During
the renegotiations San Miguel Corporations stated that the employees of its spin-of
companies Magnolia Corporation and San Miguel Food Inc. should not be included in
the bargaining unit since the companies that they work became separate and
distinct from San Miguel Corporation. The petitioner union disagreed resulting in a
deadlock with the latter filing for a notice of strike. They also disagreed on the
applicability of the renegotiated terms of the CBA wherein the petitioner-union
stated that CBA should be applicable for the remaining two years while San Miguel
Corporation stated that it should be applicable for three years.

Issue:

Is the CBA efective for three years?

Should the employees of Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Inc. be included in the
bargaining unit represented by the petitioner-union?

Laws Applicable:

Article 253-A or Article 265 in the renumbered version of the Labor Code.

Case History:

This case was decided by the Secretary of Labor on February 15, 1993 and was filed
to the Court for appeal.
Ruling:

On the first issue the Court stated that Article 253-A which became Article 265 in
the renumbered version of the Labor Code intended for the CBA to be efective for
three years. While on the second issue the employees of the spun-of companies
Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Inc. cannot be considered as part of the bargaining
unit because the restructuring of the corporation was a management prerogative
and the Court cannot interfere because it was not contrary to law, public policy or
morals.

Opinion:

The Court decided correctly on both issues. Article 265 of the Labor Code clearly
stated that the other terms and negotiations of the CBA will be efective for three
years San Miguel Corporation was following the law when it had the same sentiment
regarding their CBA with SMCEU-PTGWD. While on the second issue the employees
of Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Inc. cannot be part of the bargaining unit in San
Miguel Corporation anymore because the restructuring gave the first two companies
separate and distinct personalities to that of San Miguel Corporation. The latter did
not intend to commit unfair labor practice because it still made sure that the
employees who were already in Magnolia and San Miguel Foods Inc. before the
restructuring will be absorbed in the same separate and distinct companies. The
employees will also be paid in accordance to the existing CBA but they will not be
included in the next one.
 Supreme Steel Corporation(petitioner) vs NMS-IND-APL(respondent)

G.R. No. 185556 March 28, 2011

Facts:

The respondent filed for a notice of strike because the petitioner violated the CBA
when it did not increase the wages of its four employees namely: Juan Nino,
Reynaldo Acosta, Rommel Talavera and Eddie Dalagon. The petitioner explained
that it has been a company practice to adjust the wages of employees who has
reached one year of service and already gave anniversary wage increase therefore
the wage increase in the CBA is no longer implemented and according to the
petitioner it was not objected upon by the respondent as evidenced by the
employees pay slips.

The respondent also alleged that the petitioner also violated the CBA when it hired
contractual employees to work on other units aside from the agreed warehouse and
packing sections. Said contractual employees are also not regularized according to
the respondent.

Issue:

Should the petitioner increase the wages of its employees in accordance with the
CBA?

Did the petitioner violate the CBA when it hired contractual employees on other
sections aside from the warehouse and packaging sections?

Law Applicable:

Wage Order Nos. [RBIII]-10 & 11 of DOLE

Case History:

This case was decided by the NLRC in favor of the respondents on March 30, 2007
and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on September 30, 2008.
Ruling:

Yes according to the Court the petitioner should still give a wage increase in
accordance to the CBA because the anniversary wage increase is separate and
distinct. The CBA is agreed upon by the respondent and the petitioner therefore the
latter should follow it.

Yes the petitioner violated the CBA when it hired contractual employees for other
sections aside from those agreed upon in the CBA. Hiring may be a management
prerogative but it is limited by the law and by the CBA.

Opinion:

The petitioner should have renegotiated the terms of the CBA if it does not want to
give a wage increase or it should not have given an anniversary wage increase
when it is already giving such in accordance to the CBA. The CBA is a contract
between the management and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent thus it has a
binding efect on both of them.

It is inherent that hiring is a management prerogative but the petitioner in doing so

must also comply with its agreement with its employees as said the CBA has a
binding force on the parties therefore the petitioner cannot just violate it when it
exercises its prerogative.

Therefore I concur with the decision of the Court.

 Wesleyan University vs WUP Faculty and Staf

G.R No. 181806 March 12, 2014

Facts:

Wesleyan college issued a memorandum regarding its vacation leave and sick
leave. It stated that the two must be earned. Monthly a regular employee earns
1.25 days credit for each vacation leave and sick leave. If an employee takes a
vacation leave or sick leave beyond his credits then those leaves will have no pay.
Union stated that it is violative of CBA because under the said agreement the
employees are entitled to a 15 day vacation leave or sick leave with pay annually.
Also Wesleyan college would implement only one retirement plan that which is of
Private Education Retirement Annuity Agree Association or PERAA plan and not the
retirement plan according to the CBA.

Issue:

May Wesleyan college implement its memorandum and have only one retirement
plan when the CBA says otherwise?

Case history:

Labor arbiter decided in favor of union on November 2, 2006

Court of Appeals decided in favor of union on September 25, 2007

Law applicable

Article 100 of Labor Code

Ruling:
The Supreme Court stated that Wesleyan college may not implement its
memorandum and have only one retirement plan. It clearly provided in the CBA that
the employees must have a vacation leave and sick leave and if unused it must
converted to cash when the words of the CBA are clear then it must be followed
with its literal meaning. Wesleyan college cannot reduce the retirement plan of the
employees also because of Article 100 of the Labor Code which states that the
benefits of the employees cannot be reduced or eliminated and it is also supported
by the substantial evidence presented by the union that Wesleyan college has two
retirement plans for its employees.

Opinion:

I concur with the decision of Supreme Court

The CBA is a contract between the employer and the employees. It has the binding
force of law between therefore it must be followed down to the last letter when its
words are clear. If the employer does not like it then it must renegotiate with the
union. Wesleyan college should have known not to issue a memorandum that is
violative of the CBA and also if the said college does not want to have two
retirement plans for its employees then the college should not have implemented
the PERAA plan in the first place because once the benefit has been given to the
employees it cannot be reduced by virtue of Article 100 of the Labor Code.
 NUWHRAIN vs Philippine Plaza Holdings Inc.

G.R No. 177524 July 23, 2014

Facts:

On Nov 24 1998 it has been agreed by the union and PPHI (hotel) that there will be
service charges on the sale of food, beverage, laundry and rooms and
transportation. On Feb 25 1999 it has come to the knowledge of NUWHRAIN that
there are uncollected service charges amounting to Php. 2,952,467.61. The
uncollected service charges came from 1.) Journal vouchers 2.) Banquet and other
revenue 3.) Staf and promo. On June 9, 1999 PPHI admitted to the liability of
80,063.88 only out of the 2,952,467.61 because 1.) The other claims of the union
are special promotions thus exempted from service charges 2.)The revenues did not
belong to PPHI but third party supplier 3.)No revenue came from these vouchers as
they were expenses for benefit of executives or by goodwill of clients and
government officials.

Issue:

Should NUWHRAIN be entitled to its other claims aside from the 80,063.88 liability
admitted by PPHI?

Case history:

Labor arbiter decided on the favor of PPHI on April 30, 2002

NLRC decided on the favor of the union on July 4 2005

CA decided on the favor of PPHI on January 31 2007

Law applicable:

Article 252 now article 262 of renumbered Labor Code

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that NUWHRAIN is not entitled to its other claims. The CBA
gave three requisites for the collection of service charges 1.) It must come from sale
2.) The sale must cover the transaction of food beverages, transportation and
laundry and rooms 3.) Sale that did not came from negotiated contracts and/or
special rates. In plain terms the sale must cover food, beverages transportations
and laundry and room only it is not extended to sale that does not involve the
former and sales from negotiated contracts and/or special rates. Though the cba did
not define the terms negotiated contracts and/or special rates it must be
interpreted to include all types of negotiated contracts following the rule on
statutory construction that if the words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt
as to the intention of the parties then their literal meaning must apply.

Opinion:

I concur to the decision of the Supreme Court.

The claims of the union came from those which are exempted from the CBA. The
claims came from journal vouchers, banquets and staf and promo not from the sale
of food, transportation, beverages and laundry and rooms. The former is clearly not
covered by the CBA as stated by the Supreme Court. The CBA has the force of law
between the parties therefore it must be followed by the parties.