Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

CASE 35 Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union-NFL [CABEU-NFL] vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. [CAB] G.R. No.

186605

FACTS: CABEU-NFL the certified bargaining agent of CAB rank-and-file-employees sent to the latter a proposed CBAseeking increases in the daily wage and vacation and sick leave benefits of the monthly employees and the grant of leave benefits and 13th month pay to seasonal workers. CAB responded with a counter- proposal to the effect that the production bonus incentive and special production bonus and incentives be maintained. CAB, however, did not agree to grant additional and separate Christmas bonuses. CAB received an Amended Union Proposal8 sent by CABEU-NFL reducing its previous demand regarding wages and bonuses. CAB, however, maintained its position on the matter. Thus, the collective bargaining negotiations resulted in a deadlock. On account of the impasse, CABEU-NFL filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. The NCMB then summoned the parties to conciliation conferences. CAB replied through a letter CABEU-NFL has already lost its majority status by reason of the disauthorization and withdrawal of support thereto by more than
90% of the rank and file employees and that the workers themselves have organized a new union representing almost all the rank-and-file employees in the central, the CABELA union. Clearly, therefore, the request for further conciliation conference will serve no lawful and practical purpose. It appears that the NCMB failed to act on the

letter- response of CAB. Neither did it convene CAB and CABEU- NFL to continue the negotiations between them. Reacting from the letter-response of CAB, CABEU-NFL filed a Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice12 for the formers

refusal to bargain with it. Issue: Whether or not committed CAB committed Unfair Labor Practice on the ground of refusal to bargain Held: For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be
shown that CAB was motivated by ill will, bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted in suspending negotiations with CABEU-NFL. Notably, CAB believed that CABEU-NFL was no longer the representative of the workers. It just wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a CBA with CABELA. Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to anti- unionism, the evil sought to be punished in cases of unfair labor practices.

CASE 36 CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS,vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.
G.R. No. 190515

Cirtek Electronics, Inc. (respondent), had an existing CBA with Cirtek Employees Labor Union- Federation of Free Workers (petitioner) for the period January 1, 2001 up to December 31, 2005. Prior to the 3rd year of the CBA, the parties renegotiated its economic provisions but failed to reach a settlement, particularly on the issue of wage increases. Petitioner thereupon declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. Respondent, upon the other hand, filed a Notice of Lockout. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the controversy and issued a Return to Work Order which was complied with. Before the Secretary of Labor could rule on the controversy, respondent created a Labor Management Council through which it concluded with the remaining officers of petitioner a Memorandum of Agreement providing for daily wage increases of P6.00 per day effective January 1, 2004 and P9.00 per day effective January 1, 2005. Petitioner submitted the MOA to the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter the Secretary of Labor resolved the CBA deadlock by awarding a wage increase of from P6.00 to P10.00 per day effective January 1, 2004 and from P9.00 to P15.00 per day effective January 1, 2005, and adopting all other benefits as embodied in the MOA.

Issue: whether the Secretary of Labor is authorized to give an award higher than that agreed upon in the MOA Held: Yes. It is well-settled that the Secretary of Labor, in the
exercise of his power to assume jurisdiction under Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code, may resolve all issues involved in the controversy including the award of wage increases and benefits. While an arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the State thru the Secretary of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral award can be considered an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement which would otherwise have been entered into by the parties, hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contract obligation.

CASE 37 Solidbank Corporation vs. Gamier


G.R. No. 159460

Solidbank and Solidbank Employees Union were set to renegotiate the economic provisions of their CBA to cover the remaining two years thereof. Negotiations commenced on but seeing that an agreement was unlikely, the Union declared a deadlock on and filed a Notice of Strike. During the collective bargaining negotiations, some Union members staged a series of mass actions. In view of the impending actual strike, then Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute, pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. The assumption order directed the parties to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that might exacerbate the situation. Dissatisfied with the Secretarys ruling, the Union officers and members decided to protest the same by holding a rally in front of the Office of the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter an overwhelming majority of employees, including the individual respondents, joined the mass leave and protest action at DOLE office while the banks provincial branches followed suit and boycotted regular work. The union members also picketed the banks Head Office. As a result of the employees concerted actions, Solidbanks business operations were paralyzed. On the same day, then President of Solidbank, Deogracias N. Vistan, issued a memorandum7 addressed to all

employees calling their absence from work and demonstration infront of the DOLE office as an illegal act, and reminding them that they have put their jobs at risk as they will be asked to show cause why they should not be terminated for participating in the union-instigated concerted action. The employees work abandonment/boycott lasted for three days. ISSUE: Whether the protest rally staged by the union violated the Order of the Secretary of Labor, hence constitutes illegal strike Held: Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. The term strike shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional term strike was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling.

CASE 38

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals


G.R. No. 155109

FACTS: C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and processing of plywood. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) is the exclusive bargaining agent of the Companys rank and file employees. The other parties to these cases are the Union officers and their striking members. The Company and the Union entered into CBA that bound them to hold no strike and no lockout in the course of its life. At some point the parties began negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA but this ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at conciliation by the DOLE failed, the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted in an overwhelming majority of its members favoring it. The Union reported the strike vote to the DOLE and, after the observance of the mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike. The Company, on the other hand, filed a petition to declare the Unions strike illegal, citing its violation of the no strike, no lockout, provision of their CBA.
ISSUE: Whether

or not the Union staged an illegal strike

HELD: A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has complied with the strict requirements for staging one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Here, the CBA between the parties contained a no strike, no lockout provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company from resorting to the use of economic weapons available to them under the law and to instead take recourse to voluntary arbitration in settling

their disputes. No law or public policy prohibits the Union and the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout maces available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987 Constitution recognizes in Section 3, Article XIII, preferential use of voluntary means to settle disputes. ThusThe State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.