(BLR Registry of Union & CBA file)
Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs Liberty Flour
G.RN - 58768 December 29, 1989
Cruz, J:
Facts:
On February 6, 1974, respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Liberty Flour entered into a 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a daily wage increase of PhP2.00 for 1974, PhP1.00 for 1975 and PhP1.00 for 1976. The parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good standing for the duration of CBA” as a condition for continued employment of workers. PLAC complained against the company for non-payment of E-COLA under P.D. 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 4, 1975, this time by petitioners who apparently were veering away from PLAC. Evaristo and Biascan, after organizing a union, filed for a certification election among rank-and-file employees. PLAC then expelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the respondent company, who complied on May 20, 1975. The claims for E-COLA was dismissed as it was already absorbed by the wage increase. The termination case in relation to back wages was also dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not E_COLA was also absorbed in the wage increases and won dismissal of Evaristo and Biascan was illegal.
Ruling:
The company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before the obligation was imposed by government (P.D. 525). What the petitioners claim they are being made to waive is the additional allowance but the truth is they are not entitled to because they are already enjoying the stipulated increases.
As with the case of illegal dismissal, the CBA concluded in 1974 was certifiable and in fact certified in April 11, 1975 while the two were dismissed on may 20, 1975. Evidence show that after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the Federation of Democratic Labor Unions, no other union contested the exclusive representation of the PLAC, consequently there was no more legal impediment that stood on the way of its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between respondent corporation and respondent union. Once it was duly entered into and signed by the parties, a collective bargaining agreement becomes effective as between the parties regardless of won the same has been certified by the BLR.
Labor Employee Representation and Participation
Meralco vs Quisumbing
GRN 127598 january 27, 1999
Ynares –
Facts:
The court directed the parties to execute of CBA incorporating the terms among which are the following modified.
Wages: P 1,900 for 1995-96
Retroactivity: December 28, 1996- December 27, 1999
Dissatisfied, some members of the union filed a motion for intervention/reconsideration Petition warns that if the wage increased of the P 2, 200 per month as ordered is allowed, it would pass the cost covering such increase rate of electricity, on the retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the parties reckon the period as when retraction shall commerce.
Issue:
Whether or not retroactivity of arbitral awards shall commerce as such time as granted by Secretary.
Ruling:
In St. Luke’s Medical vs. Torres, a deadlock developed during CBA negotiations between management unions. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration to the previous CBA. The court ratiocinated thus, in the absence of the specific provision of law prohibiting retroactive of the affectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary pursuant to art 263 (9) of the labor code, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary power to determine the affectivity thereof.
In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the affectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other hand, the law is silent is as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by intervention of the government. In the absence of CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity is part os his discretionary power over arbitral awards shall control.
Whereof, the arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997; and the award of wage is increased from 1,900 to P 2,000
Post a Comment