Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Marcopper V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev SangEr
    The case involved a dispute between Marcopper Mining Corporation and a union over the implementation of a wage increase under their Collective Bargaining Agreement. An executive order was passed that increased workers' basic wage by integrating the cost of living allowance, with retroactive effect to the same date the CBA increase was due. While CBAs govern the relationship between the parties, they must conform to law. The court found that the company properly computed the CBA increase based on the integrated wage, as that was mandated by clear law as of the effective date, regardless of the parties' original intent. CBAs are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.

    Copyright:

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

    Marcopper V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev SangEr
    100 views2 pages
    The case involved a dispute between Marcopper Mining Corporation and a union over the implementation of a wage increase under their Collective Bargaining Agreement. An executive order was passed that increased workers' basic wage by integrating the cost of living allowance, with retroactive effect to the same date the CBA increase was due. While CBAs govern the relationship between the parties, they must conform to law. The court found that the company properly computed the CBA increase based on the integrated wage, as that was mandated by clear law as of the effective date, regardless of the parties' original intent. CBAs are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    marcopper v nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute between Marcopper Mining Corporation and a union over the implementation of a wage increase under their Collective Bargaining Agreement. An executive order was passed that increased workers' basic wage by integrating the cost of living allowance, with retroactive effect to the same date the CBA increase was due. While CBAs govern the relationship between the parties, they must conform to law. The court found that the company properly computed the CBA increase based on the integrated wage, as that was mandated by clear law as of the effective date, regardless of the parties' original intent. CBAs are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    100 views2 pages

    Marcopper V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev SangEr
    The case involved a dispute between Marcopper Mining Corporation and a union over the implementation of a wage increase under their Collective Bargaining Agreement. An executive order was passed that increased workers' basic wage by integrating the cost of living allowance, with retroactive effect to the same date the CBA increase was due. While CBAs govern the relationship between the parties, they must conform to law. The court found that the company properly computed the CBA increase based on the integrated wage, as that was mandated by clear law as of the effective date, regardless of the parties' original intent. CBAs are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.

    Copyright:

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

    Marcopper v NLRC, GR# 103525

    Facts: On August 23, 1984, Marcopper Mining Corporation and private respondent
    NAMAWUMIF entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from
    May 1, 1984 until April 30, 1987. On July 25, 1986, prior to the expiration of the
    aforestated Agreement, the petitioner and private respondent executed a Memorandum of
    Agreement wherein the terms of the CBA, specifically on matters of wage increase and
    facilities allowance were modified. On June 1, 1987, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 178 was
    promulgated mandating the integration of the cost of living allowance under Wage Orders
    Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 into the basic wage of workers, its effectivity retroactive to May 1,
    1987. Consequently, the basic wage rate of petitioner's laborers categorized as non-
    agricultural workers was increased by P9.00 per day. Furthermore, the petitioner
    implemented the second five percent (5%) wage increase due on the same date and
    thereafter added the integrated COLA. However, the private respondent assailed the
    manner in which the second wage increase was effected. It argued that the COLA should
    first be integrated into the basic wage before the 5% wage increase is computed.

    Issue: Whether or not the CBA should complied with.

    Held: Yes. The principle that the CBA is the law between the contracting parties stands
    strong and true. However, the present controversy involves not merely an interpretation
    of CBA provisions. More importantly, it requires a determination of the effect of an
    executive order on the terms and the conditions of the CBA. This is, and should be, the
    focus of the instant case.

    It is unnecessary to delve too much on the intention of the parties as to what they
    allegedly meant by the term "basic wage" at the time the CBA and MOA were executed
    because there is no question that as of May 1, 1987, as mandated by E.O. No. 178, the
    basic wage of workers, or the statutory minimum wage, was increased with the
    integration of the COLA. As of said date, then, the term "basic wage" includes the
    COLA. This is what the law ordains and to which the collective bargaining agreement of
    the parties must conform.

    Petitioner's arguments eventually lose steam in the light of the fact that compliance with
    the law is mandatory and beyond contractual stipulation by and between the parties; thus,
    whether or not petitioner intended the basic wage to include the COLA becomes
    immaterial. There is evidently nothing to construe and to interpret because the law is
    clear and unambiguous. Sadly for petitioner, said law, by some uncanny coincidence,
    retroactively took effect on the same date the CBA increase became effective. Therefore,
    there cannot be any doubt that the computation of the CBA increase on the basis of the
    "integrated" wage does not constitute a violation of the CBA. While the terms and
    conditions of the CBA constitute the law between the parties, it isn’t an ordinary contract
    to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. A CBA, as a labor
    contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
    which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature
    but impressed with public interest, hence, it must yield to the common good. As such, it
    must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must
    place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context
    in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve.

    You might also like