Case Digest Nestle and UST Faculty

UST FACULTY UNION v.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL

G.R. No. 180892 April 7, 2009
Facts:
University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) wrote a letter to all its members informing them of a
General Assembly. The then incumbent president of the USTFU was Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño, Jr. The letter
contained an agenda for the GA which included an election of officers.
Secretary General of the UST, issued a Memorandum allowing the request of the Faculty Clubs of the
university to hold a convocation. Members of the faculties of the university attended the convocation,
including members of the USTFU, without the participation of the members of the UST administration.
During the convocation, an election for the officers of the USTFU was conducted by a group called the
Reformist Alliance. Upon learning that the convocation was intended to be an election, members of the
USTFU walked out. Meanwhile, an election was conducted among those present.
Gil Gamilla and other faculty members (Gamilla Group) were elected as the president and officers,
respectively, of the union. Thus, there were two (2) groups claiming to be the USTFU: the Gamilla Group
and the group led by Atty. Mariño, Jr. (Mariño Group).
Mariño Group filed a complaint for ULP against the UST with the Arbitration Branch. It also filed a
complaint with the Office of the Med-Arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
praying for the nullification of the election of the Gamilla Group as officers of the USTFU.
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was entered into by the Gamilla Group and the UST. The CBA
superseded an existing CBA entered into by the UST and USTFU. Gamilla, accompanied by the barangay
captain in the area padlocked the office of the USTFU. Afterwards, an armed security guard of the UST was
posted in front of the USTFU office.
ISSUE: Whether herein respondents are guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.
Ruling: No. The respondents are not guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.
The fact of the matter is, the Gamilla Group represented itself to respondents as the duly elected officials
of the USTFU.22 As such, respondents were bound to deal with them.
Art. 248(g) of the Labor Code provides that:
ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers.––It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
following unfair labor practice:
xxxx
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.
Moreover, Art. 252 of the Code defines the duty to bargain collectively as:
ART. 252. 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 or questions 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.
There was no reason not to recognize the Gamilla Group as the new officers and directors of USTFU. And
as stated in the above-quoted provisions of the Labor Code, the UST was obligated to deal with the
USTFU, as the recognized representative of the bargaining unit, through the Gamilla Group. UST’s failure
to negotiate with the USTFU would have constituted ULP.
G.R. Nos. 158930-31 March 3, 2008
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG
MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU), petitioner,
vs.
NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent.
x------------------------------------------x
G.R. Nos. 158944-45 March 3, 2008
NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, petitioner,
vs.
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG
MAYO UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU), respondent.
Facts:
UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestlé
belonging to the latter’s Alabang and Cabuyao plants. On 4 April 2001, as the existing collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) between Nestlé and UFE-DFA-KMU4 was to end on 5 June 2001,5 the
Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of UFE-DFA-KMU informed Nestlé of their intent to
"open [our] new Collective Bargaining Negotiation for the year 2001-2004 x x x as early as June 2001."6 In
response thereto, Nestlé informed them that it was also preparing its own counter-proposal and
proposed ground rules to govern the impending conduct of the CBA negotiations. Despite fifteen (15)
meetings between them, the parties failed to reach any agreement on the proposed CBA.
The union argued that Nestlé’s “refusal to bargain on a very important CBA economic provision
constitutes unfair labor practice” when it allegedly set as a precondition for the holding of collective
bargaining negotiations the non-inclusion of the issue of Retirement Plan.
Issue: Whether or not Nestlé is guilty of unfair labor practice
Ruling: No. Nestlé is not guilty of unfair labor practice
The duty to bargain collectively is mandated by Articles 252 and 253 of the Labor Code, as amended.
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 statutes invite and contemplate a collective bargaining
contract, but they do not compel one. 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 Nestlé 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"27
in disclaiming unilateral grants as proper subjects in their collective bargaining negotiations.
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 employer’s steadfast
insistence to exclude a particular substantive provision is no different from a bargaining representative’s
perseverance to include one that they deem of absolute necessity. Indeed, an adamant insistence on a
bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an impasse does not establish bad
faith.[fn24 p.10] 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 management’s firm stand against the issue of the Retirement Plan did not mean that it was
bargaining in bad faith. It had a right to insist on its position to the point of stalemate.

Case Digest Nestle and UST Faculty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Nestle and UST Faculty

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Case Digest Nestle and UST Faculty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the issue in the UST FACULTY UNION case?

What was the issue in the NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES case?

UST FACULTY UNION v.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL

ISSUE: Whether herein respondents are guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.

Art. 248(g) of the Labor Code provides that:

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.

G.R. Nos. 158930-31 March 3, 2008

NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent.

G.R. Nos. 158944-45 March 3, 2008

NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, petitioner,

Issue: Whether or not Nestlé is guilty of unfair labor practice

Ruling: No. Nestlé is not guilty of unfair labor practice

You might also like