Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    DIGEST San Miguel vs. Ople

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    This document summarizes a court case between a labor union and San Miguel Corporation regarding changes to their marketing and sales scheme. The union filed a complaint that the "Complementary Distribution System" introduced by the company violated their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the company, finding that the new system was a valid exercise of management rights intended to improve efficiency, and that the company had taken steps to compensate any losses workers incurred beyond what was required in their agreement.

    Copyright:

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

    DIGEST San Miguel vs. Ople

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    1K views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between a labor union and San Miguel Corporation regarding changes to their marketing and sales scheme. The union filed a complaint that the "Complementary Distribution System" introduced by the company violated their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the company, finding that the new system was a valid exercise of management rights intended to improve efficiency, and that the company had taken steps to compensate any losses workers incurred beyond what was required in their agreement.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law

    Original Title

    1. DIGEST San Miguel vs. Ople

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between a labor union and San Miguel Corporation regarding changes to their marketing and sales scheme. The union filed a complaint that the "Complementary Distribution System" introduced by the company violated their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the company, finding that the new system was a valid exercise of management rights intended to improve efficiency, and that the company had taken steps to compensate any losses workers incurred beyond what was required in their agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    DIGEST San Miguel vs. Ople

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    This document summarizes a court case between a labor union and San Miguel Corporation regarding changes to their marketing and sales scheme. The union filed a complaint that the "Complementary Distribution System" introduced by the company violated their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the company, finding that the new system was a valid exercise of management rights intended to improve efficiency, and that the company had taken steps to compensate any losses workers incurred beyond what was required in their agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

    G.R. No. L-53515 February 8, 1989


    SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION (PTGWO), petitioner, vs.
    HON. BLAS F. OPLE, as Minister of Labor and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

    FACTS:

    A collective bargaining agreement was entered into by San Miguel Corporation Sales Force Union
    (PTGWO) San Miguel Corporation. San Miguel Corporation introduced a marketing scheme known as the
    "Complementary Distribution System" (CDS) whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to
    wholesalers through San Miguel's sales offices. The labor union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice in
    the Ministry of Labor on the ground that the CDS was contrary to the existing marketing scheme whereby
    the Route Salesmen were assigned specific territories within which to sell their stocks of beer, and
    wholesalers had to buy beer products from them, not from the company. It was alleged that the new
    marketing scheme violates Section 1, Article IV of the collective bargaining agreement, “Employees within
    the appropriate bargaining unit shall be entitled to a basic monthly compensation plus commission based
    on their respective sales” because the introduction of the CDS would reduce the take-home pay of the
    salesmen and their truck helpers for the company would be unfairly competing with them.

    ISSUE:

    WON the new marketing scheme known as the Complementary Distribution System (CDS) is a
    violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by the labor union and San Miguel
    Corporation?

    RULING:

    SC upheld the decision of the Minister of Labor dismissing the petition and ordered the
    Management to pay an additional three (3) months back adjustment commissions over and above the
    adjusted commission under the complementary distribution system.
    SC will uphold the company's management prerogatives if exercised in good faith for the
    advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of
    the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.
    The establishment of the CDS was part of management’s plan to improve efficiency and economy
    and at the same time gain profit to the highest. The Labor Union failed to consider the fact that corollary to
    the adoption of the assailed marketing technique is the effort of the company to compensate whatever loss
    the workers may suffer because of the new plan over and above than what has been provided in the
    collective bargaining agreement.

    You might also like