Article 252) 1. Ufe-Dfa-Kmu V Nestle

ARTICLE 252 (now 258)
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 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.
1. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS

- KILUSANG MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU) vs. NESTL PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED
G.R. Nos. 158930-31 March 3, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.
Case Doctrine: The purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement
resulting in a contract binding on the parties; but the failure to reach an agreement after
negotiations have continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith.
The duty to bargain does not include the obligation to reach an agreement.
Retirement plan; No refusal to bargain collectively
FACTS: UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of Nestl belonging to the latters Alabang and Cabuyao plants.
When the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Nestl and UFEDFA-KMU was about to end, the Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of UFEDFA-KMU informed Nestl of their intent to open new Collective Bargaining Negotiation.
In response thereto, Nestl informed them that it was also preparing for the conduct of
the CBA negotiations. Nestl reiterated its stance that "unilateral grants, one-time company
grants, company-initiated policies and programs, which include, but are not limited to the
Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium, are by their very
nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom."
Dialogue between the company and the union thereafter ensued.
Petitioners contention: UFE-DFA-KMU argues therein that Nestls "refusal to bargain on
a very important CBA economic provision constitutes unfair labor practice." It explains that
Nestl set as a precondition for the holding of collective bargaining negotiations the noninclusion of the issue of Retirement Plan.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nestle is guilty of Unfair Labor Practice for violating the duty to
bargain collectively.
HELD: NO. The purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement resulting in
a contract binding on the parties; but the failure to reach an agreement after negotiations
have continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith. The duty to
bargain does not include the obligation to reach an agreement.
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that Nestl 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 x x x" in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper
subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations. While the law makes it an obligation for the
employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion does
not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. All it
contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and
make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.
In the case at bar, Nestle never refused to bargain collectively with UFE-DFA-KMU.
The corporation simply wanted to exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up
during CBA negotiations, on the postulation that such was in the nature of a unilaterally
granted benefit. An employers steadfast insistence to exclude a particular substantive
provision is no different from a bargaining representatives perseverance to include one that
they deem of absolute necessity. Indeed, an insistence on a bargaining position to the point
where the negotiations reach an impasse does not establish bad faith. It is but natural that at
negotiations, management and labor adopt positions or make demands and offer proposals
and counter- proposals. On account of the importance of the economic issue proposed by
UFE-DFA-KMU, Nestle could have refused to bargain with the former but it did not. And the
managements firm stand against the issue of the Retirement Plan did not mean that it was
bargaining in bad faith.
The crucial question, therefore, of whether or not a party has met his statutory duty to
bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test
of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts.
Herein, no proof was presented to exemplify bad faith on the part of Nestl apart from mere
allegation.
#TOMAS

Article 252) 1. Ufe-Dfa-Kmu V Nestle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 252) 1. Ufe-Dfa-Kmu V Nestle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 252) 1. Ufe-Dfa-Kmu V Nestle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 252 (now 258)

1. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS

You might also like