Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

12 Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils.

G.R. No. 169243, December 6, 2010

EUBP <3 Bayer. Bayer proposed 9.9% wage increase, EUBP didn't agree ENTER UNION
MEMBER REMIGIO (REUBP aka abangers) REUBP accepted the 9.9% wage increase w/o
authority from EUBP. Remigio went around and asked the union members to join her new union
and most of them did. Now EUBP and REUBP are asking for remittance of the union dues.
Bayer decided not to interfere and put the union dues in a trust account. 1 st ULP was filed for
non-remittance of union dues. Pending this (ang taksil) Bayer turned over the dues to REUBP
(wow). 1st ULP was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 2nd ULP filed. A new CBA entered into by
REUBP and Bayer. 2nd ULP dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appealed to CA, denied. Appealed

Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) is the exclusive bargaining agent of Bayer
Philippines and an affiliate of Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
1997 EUBP (headed by Facundo) negotiated with Bayer for the signing of a CBA,
during the negotiations EUBP rejected Bayers proposal of a 9.9% wage increase
resulting in a bargaining deadlock which led to a strike and for the DOLE
Secretary to assume jurisdiction
Pending the resolution of the dispute, Remigio and 27 other union members accepted
the wage increase proposal W/O any authority from EUBP
EUBPs grievance committee questioned Remigios actions and reprimanded her and
her allies
1998 DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to
execute a CBA retroactive to Jan 1, 1997 and be made effective until Dec 31, 2001
CBA was registered in 1998 with the Industrial Relations Division of DOLE-NCR
The rift between Facundo and Remigio grew, and in Aug of 1998 barely six
months from the signing of the new CBA, Remigio solicited signatures from union
members in support of a resolution
Resolution stating the decisions of the signatories to:
o Disaffiliate with FFW
o Rename the union to Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP)
o Adopt new constitution and by laws
o Abolish all existing officers positions and elect a new set of interim officers
o Authorize REUBP to administer the CBA between EUBP and Bayer
The resolution was signed by 147 of the 257 local union members, a subsequent
resolution was also issued affirming the first resolution
EUBP and REUBP both sough the recognition and demanded the remittance of the
union dues collected from the rnf members from Bayer
Sept 1998 Remigio group wrote to Facundo, FFW, and Bayer informing them of the
decision of the majority union members to disaffiliate from FFW, another letter followed,
informing them that:
o An interim set of executive officers, board of directors of REUBP had been
appointed and
o Demanding the remittance of all union dues to REUBP
o Remigio also asked Bayer to desist from further transacting with EUBP
Facundo on the hand sent similar requests to Bayer for the remittance of the union dues
Bayer decided not to deal with either and put the union dues in a trust account until the
conflict between the two groups was resolved
Sept 1998 EUBP filed a ULP case (1 st ULP) against Bayer for non-remittance of
union dues
EUBP sent a letter to Bayer asking for a grievance conference with all the REUBP
officers, Facundo did not attend but sent two officers informing them that a preventive
mediation conference between the two groups has been scheduled with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) both groups failed to settle so Facundo sent
two more letters asking for grievance meeting with the management
Pending 1st ULP Bayer decided to turn over the union dues to REUBP
EUBP filed a complaint for expulsion against Remigios group with the Industrial
Relations Division of DOLE for commission of acts threatening the life of the union.
1999 1st ULP was dismissed lack of jurisdiction, the LA explained that the root
cause of Bayers failure to remit the union dues was due to an intra-union dispute
between EUBP and REUBP and this should have been brought with the voluntary
Dec 1999 2nd ULP case was filed charging respondents of forming a company
union, gross violation of the CBA and the violation of their duty to bargain
REUBP and Bayer signed a new CBA
EUBP filed a motion for the issuance of a restraining order/injunction before the NLRC
and the LA, they asserted their authority as the EBR
Subsequently, EUBP amended their 2nd ULP complaint to include gross violation of the
CBA for violating the contract bar rule
Industrial Relations Division dismissed the complaint for expulsion for failing to
exhaust reliefs within the union, this decision was appealed to the BLR where the
decision was reversed
Unfortunately BLR ruling came late as the new CBA was ratified by majority of the
2000 - 2nd ULP case was dismissed lack of jurisdiction; the LA explained that the case
was an intra-union dispute to which the BLR has jurisdiction over and not the NLRC
Motion for issuance of a restraining order was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, one
being a case for intra-union dispute
EUBP appealed the decision NLRC denied, MR denied
EUBP filed a Rule 65 to the CA which sustained both rulings of the LA and NLRC
EUBP filed a Rule 45 to the SC

Were the acts of Bayer, in dealing with a splinter group of the EBR despite the existence
of a CBA with EUBP, considered a ULP?
Partly meritorious so, yes and no.
Disposing of the issue as to whether the charges were intra-union dispute: NO. Not in
the list, the issue raise is the validity of the acts of Bayer in light of an existing CBA this
is not an intra-union dispute, this was cognizable by the NLRC so 2 nd ULP dismissal was
As against Remigio and cohorts; complaint was validly dismissed, the issue is clearly of
the nature of an intra-union dispute (Rule XI, Sec 1 (m)), so for the LA and NLRC to rule
on the validity or illegality, they would have to touch on issues outside their jurisdiction
(propriety of disaffiliation, legality of establishment of REUBP)
An employer should not be able to rescind unilaterally a CBA with the duly certified
bargaining agent it had previously contracted with, and decide to bargain anew with a
different group if there is no legitimate reason for doing so and without first following the
proper procedure.
ART. 264. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining
agreement.Where 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
Compliance with the terms and conditions of the CBA is mandated by law, so when a
valid and binding CBA has been entered intothe employer is expected to observe the
terms and conditions including the union dues and representation