2- Una conciencia inquieta:
3.1 La Gran Marcha Cultural:
LABOR CODE
ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. — The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice;
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply, either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request;
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call;
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes;
and
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.
ART. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. — In the absence of
an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. — The duty to bargain collectively means:
• the performance of a mutual obligation
• to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith
• for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
• including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party,
• but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. — When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime.
However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date.
It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the term and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. — Any collective bargaining agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agewhall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof.
In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code.
ART. 254. Injunction prohibited. — No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Art.s 218 and 264 of this Code.
LABOR CODE
ART. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective agreements.
—
The Bureau shall keep a registry of - legitimate labor organizations.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file of - all collective bargaining agreements - and other related agreements
- and records of settlement of labor disputes,
- and copies of orders, and decisions of voluntary arbitrators.
The file shall be open and accessible
• to interested parties
• under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
• provided that no specific information submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless:
- authorized by the Secretary,
- or when it is at issue in any judicial litigation
-or when public int\erest or national security so requires.
Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a collective bargaining agreement,
• the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and Employment for registration ,
• accompanied with
- verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work
- and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit.
The Bureau or Regional Offices shall
• act upon the application for registration of such collective bargaining agreement within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof.
• The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the collective bargaining agreement within five (5) days from its submission.
• The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for every collective bargaining agreement a
- registration fee of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00)
- or in any other amount as may be deemed appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
- for the effective and efficient administration of the voluntary arbitration program.
- Any amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file, and shall undertake or assist in the publication, of all final decisions, orders and awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Regional Directors and the Commission.
OMNIBUS RULES, BOOK V AS AMENDED BY D.O. 40
RULE I
DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1. Definition of Terms.
(d) "Bargaining Unit" refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping within such employer unit.
(h) "Certification Election" or "Consent Election" refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. A certification election is ordered by the Department, while a consent election is voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the intervention by the Department.
(j) "Collective Bargaining Agreement" or "CBA" refers to the contract between a legitimate labor union and the employer concerning wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.
(t) "Exclusive Bargaining Representative" refers to a legitimate labor union duly recognized or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative or agent of all the employees in a bargaining unit.
(bbb) "Voluntary Recognition" refers to the process by which a legitimate labor union is recognized by the employer as the exclusive bargaining representative or
agent in a bargaining unit, reported with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule VII, Section 2 of these Rules.
CASES
Duty to Bargain Collectively:
Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v Marcelo Enterprises, 118 SCRA 422
This case involves several issues:
When the CBA was about to reach its expiration date, LAKAS requested for renegotiation with the company and submitted its proposal. It turns out however that several unions were likewise demanding for renegotiation. The company, instead of submitting a counter proposal to LAKAS, informed the union of the existence of the conflicting demands from the other unions and suggested that the unions file the necessary complaint in court to finally determine who is the authorized representative. LAKAS claims that management refused to bargain with it when it did not submit a counter proposal.
Held: Management did not ignore the demand for collective bargaining although it did not submit a counter proposal. There exists in this case a real issue as to representation and management’s suggestion that the unions file the necessary complaint in view of the fact that there are several unions claiming to represent the employees does not constitute failure or refusal to bargain.
Because of the company’s alleged refusal to bargain, LAKAS staged a strike.
Held: Where there exists a legitimate issue as to which of several unions is the legitimate representative of employees, it is ULP for one of the contending unions to stage a strike and demand that the employer sit down with it for collective bargaining.
The company asked the striking workers to fill up forms on when they are available for work. The union says this is ULP. The company says it merely wanted to know when the workers would show up for work so it can come up with a reasonable working schedule. It reasons that the two strikes staged by the employees resulted in the complete paralysis of the company’s business and it cannot just readmit all returning workers in one big force or as each demanded readmission.
Held: An employer may be justified in requiring a reasonable scheduling of working hours of returning striking employees and inquiring into their time availabilities. The Court took judicial cognizance of the fact that companies whose businesses were completely paralyzed by major strikes cannot resume full operation at once.
Not all the striking workers were allowed to return to work.
Held: It should be noted that only those who refused to fill up the questionnaire were not readmitted. All those who filled up their respective forms were scheduled for work and were readmitted. The stoppage of the employees’ work was not the direct consequence of the company’s act. Their economic loss should not be shifted to the employer.
LAKAS brought this action in behalf of all employees who were not allowed to return to work, whether or not they are members of LAKAS.
Held: A labor union cannot bring an action I behalf of employees who are members of another union even if said employees signed the complaint. The proper remedy is to drop the union as party to the action and place the individual names of the employees instead.
National Union of Restaurant Workers (PTUC) vs. CIR, 10 SCRA 843
On June 9, 1960, a complaint for unfair labor practice was lodged against the owners of Tres Hermanas Restaurant, particularly Mrs.
Felisa Herrera, on the ground, among others, that respondents
refused to bargain collectively with the complaining union;
respondents made a counter-proposal in the sense that they would bargain with said union and would accept its demands if the same would become a company union, and one Martin Briones, and employee, was separated from the service because he was found to be the organizer and adviser of the complaining union.
Held: There was no refusal to bargain collectively. The letter sent by the union to respondents contains certain marks, opposite each demand, such as a check for those demands to which Mrs. Felisa Herrera was agreeable, a cross signifying the disapproval of Mrs.
Herrera, and a circle regarding those demands which were left open for discussion on some future occasion that the parties may deem convenient. Such markings were made during the discussion of the demands in the meeting called by respondents on May 3, 1960 at their restaurant in Quezon City. The court a quo concluded that the fact that respondent Herrera had agreed to some of the demands shows that she did not refuse to bargain collectively with the complaining union.
The inference that respondents did not refuse to bargain collectively with the complaining union because they accepted some of the demands while they refused the others even leaving open other demands for future discussion is correct. The fact is that respondents did not ignore the letter sent by the union so much so that they called a meeting to discuss its demands, as already stated elsewhere.
Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs. Liberty Flou Mills, Inc., December 29, 1989
The petitioners, after organizing another union filed a certification election among the rank-in-file employees, are terminated because o a “union shop clause”3 in the CBA.
The SC affirmed the decision that such dismissal was valid since the purpose of self-organization, collective bargaining, negotiation, and peaceful assembly including the right to strike in
3 A “Union Shop Claus” in CBA is a clause that requires union membership in good standing as a requirement for continued employment.
accordance with the law will not work if every worker were to choose his own separate way instead of joining hi co-employees.
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Associatio of Employees and Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587
Petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The issue in this case is whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere information that a petition for certification has been filed by another legitimate labor organization.
Held: It is noteworthy in Art. 255, it is required that both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. Undoubtedly, respondent Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran (AEFL) (hereinafter, "union") lived up to this requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner devised ways and means in order to prevent the negotiation.
Petitioner's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to file its reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining
San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v Confesor, 262 SCRA 81
SMC was restructured. Two of its divisions were turned into separate distinct corporations. The union insists on uniting the employees of the 2 new corporations into one bargaining unit. The Court ruled that the employees from the new corporations constituted separate bargaining units for the following reasons:
1. The workers are employed by two different employers as a consequence of incorporation (separate juridical personality)
2. The members of a bargaining unit must have mutual interests. Considering the spin-off, the companies will consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment.
MERALCO Cases
Facts: A CBA was entered into with a term of 5 years. Nearing its 3rd year of effectivity, the parties met to renegotiate. The remaining 2 years of the CBA, which is the subject of the renegotiation in this case, was for the period 1 December 1995 to 30 November 1997.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173
Nearing the 3rd year of the effectivity of the CBA, the parties met to renegotiate. Unable to come to an agreement during the renegotiation, and there existing the imminence of a strike, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The Secretary resolved the issue through an order setting forth the approved economic demands. The effective date of the Secretary’s order is in question.
Held: The date of effectivity shall be as agreed upon by the parties.
The law requires that a CBA be renegotiated within 3 years from its execution. If there is no agreement reached within 6 months from the expiry of the 3 years that follow the execution of the CBA, the law expressly gives the parties, and not anybody else, the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. In the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force
and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172
This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision in the immediately preceding case.
Held: CBA arbitral awards granted after six months from the expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to such time agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their union. In the absence of such agreement, the award shall retroact to the first day after the 6-month period following the last day of the CBA, should there be one, or, in the absence of a CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172
This is a Motion for Partial Modification of the decision in the immediately preceding case.
Held: The arbitral award shall retroact to the first day after the 6-month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA.
The CBA in this case expired on 1 December 1997. The first day after the 6-month period is 1 June 1996. The CBA shall be effective from 1 June 1996 to 31 May 1998 (effective for 2 years).
New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. v NLRC, 328 SCRA 404 Until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties, 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. The law does not provide for any exception or qualification as to which of the economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain force and effect. Therefore, it must be understood as encompassing all the terms and conditions in said agreement.
Further, when a CBA is entered into by a union representing the employees and the employer, even non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the agreement.
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service Inc. v Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 161
The signing of the agreement is not determinative of the question whether the agreement was entered into within the 6 months from the expiry of the previous agreement. The point of reckoning is the meeting of the minds. (Marlon: prove meeting of the minds through the minutes)
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing-UWP vs.
NLRC, 7 September 1998
The union claims the benefits of an agreement allegedly entered into during the negotiation, as per the minutes, but was not incorporated in the CBA as written.
Held: The union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA. The CBA is the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the law.
Note: The minutes is determinative only of the moment when there was a meeting of the minds. As to what was particularly agreed upon, it is the CBA as written which shall control.
Rivera vs. Espiritu, 374 SCRA 351