Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    General Milling Corporation V CA Digest - QUINAJON

    Uploaded by

    Elieann Quinajon
    General Milling Corporation v CA is a case regarding a dispute over collective bargaining. The union and GMC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on November 30, 1991. On November 29, 1991, the union proposed renewing the CBA, but GMC refused to negotiate, believing the union no longer represented the workers. The court found that (1) GMC committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union, as the law requires representation for 5 years, and (2) the appellate court overstepped by imposing the union's proposed CBA terms for 2 years, as the law requires both sides to negotiate in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    General Milling Corporation V CA Digest - QUINAJON

    Uploaded by

    Elieann Quinajon
    148 views2 pages
    General Milling Corporation v CA is a case regarding a dispute over collective bargaining. The union and GMC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on November 30, 1991. On November 29, 1991, the union proposed renewing the CBA, but GMC refused to negotiate, believing the union no longer represented the workers. The court found that (1) GMC committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union, as the law requires representation for 5 years, and (2) the appellate court overstepped by imposing the union's proposed CBA terms for 2 years, as the law requires both sides to negotiate in good faith.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    General Milling Corporation v CA Digest_QUINAJON

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    General Milling Corporation v CA is a case regarding a dispute over collective bargaining. The union and GMC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on November 30, 1991. On November 29, 1991, the union proposed renewing the CBA, but GMC refused to negotiate, believing the union no longer represented the workers. The court found that (1) GMC committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union, as the law requires representation for 5 years, and (2) the appellate court overstepped by imposing the union's proposed CBA terms for 2 years, as the law requires both sides to negotiate in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    148 views2 pages

    General Milling Corporation V CA Digest - QUINAJON

    Uploaded by

    Elieann Quinajon
    General Milling Corporation v CA is a case regarding a dispute over collective bargaining. The union and GMC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on November 30, 1991. On November 29, 1991, the union proposed renewing the CBA, but GMC refused to negotiate, believing the union no longer represented the workers. The court found that (1) GMC committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union, as the law requires representation for 5 years, and (2) the appellate court overstepped by imposing the union's proposed CBA terms for 2 years, as the law requires both sides to negotiate in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    General Milling Corporation v CA

    Facts:

    On April 28, 1989, GMC and the union concluded a CBA which included the issue of
    representation effective for a term of 3 years. The CBA was effective for 3 years
    retroactive to December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.On
    November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a
    proposed CBA, with a request that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten (10)
    days. As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and individual
    letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership,
    on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the union no
    longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal. On
    December 16, 1991, GMC wrote a letter to the unions officers, Mangubat and
    Lastimoso. The letter stated that it felt there was no basis to negotiate with a union
    which no longer existed, but that management was nonetheless always willing to
    dialogue with them on matters of common concern and was open to suggestions on
    how the company may improve its operations.

    Issue: (1) whether GMC guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to bargain
    collectively and/or interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization; (2)
    whether CA gravely abuse its discretion when it imposed on GMC the draft CBA
    proposed by the union for two years commencing from the expiration of the original
    CBA

    Decision:

    (1) Yes. The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five
    years. The relation between labor and management should be undisturbed until the last
    60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested for a
    renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the
    certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said
    renegotiation within five (5) years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1,
    1988. The unions proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from
    the date of effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was
    obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the
    union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the
    economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under
    Article 248 of the Labor Code.
    (2) No. ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining
    agreement. ....It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue
    in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-
    day period [prior to its expiration date] and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
    parties. The provision mandates the parties to keep the status quo while they are still in
    the process of working out their respective proposal and counter proposal. The general
    rule is that when a CBA already exists, its provision shall continue to govern the
    relationship between the parties, until a new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily
    presupposes that all other things are equal. That is, that neither party is guilty of bad
    faith. However, when one of the parties abuses this grace period by purposely delaying
    the bargaining process, a departure from the general rule is warranted.

    You might also like