COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

ATTY. KRISTY JANE M. BALINO, LL.M

 Before collective bargaining can take
place, the bargaining representative is
first identified [Art. 268 and Art. 269]

Legitimate Exclusive
Labor Organization
Labor Bargaining
[LO]
Organization Representative
[LLO] [EBR]
Before collective bargaining can take place, the bargaining representative is
first identified [Art. 268 and Art. 269] vis-à-vis Modes to acquire status as Sole
and Exclusive Bargaining Agent (SEBA)
SEBA Certification Certification Election

Filed by any legitimate labor organization in the Regional Office Process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
which issued its certificate of registration or certificate of creation representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for
of chartered local. The request will only be granted by the DOLE purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. A certification election
if what is involved is an unorganized establishment with only is ordered by the DOLE. Certification election may be conducted during
the pendency of the cancellation of the registration certificate
one legitimate union. (DOLE D.O. No. 40-I-15, s.2015)
proceedings. This is because at the time the petition for certification was
filed, the petitioning union is presumed to possess the legal personality
Upon issuance of a SEBA certification, the certified union shall to file the same. (Legend International v. KML Independent, [2011])
enjoy all the rights and privileges of an exclusive bargaining Members of religious groups who do not want to join unions may vote in
agent of all the employees in the covered bargaining unit. a certification election (Reyes vs. Trajano [1992]).

It is the BEST METHOD of determining the will of the workers on the

The certification shall bar the filing of a petition for certification
crucial question of who shall represent them in their negotiations with
election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year the management for a collective bargaining agreement that will best
from the date of its issuance. Upon expiration of the one-year protect and promote their interests. It is essential that there be no
period, any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for collusion against this objective between an unscrupulous management
certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by and a union covertly supporting it while professing its loyalty to labor,
the certified labor union, unless a CBA was executed and or at least that the hopes of labor be not frustrated because of its
registered with the Regional Office. representation by a union that does not enjoy its approval and support. It
is therefore sound policy that any doubt regarding the real
If there is more than one legitimate labor union in an representation of the workers be resolved in favor of the holding of the
certification election. This is preferable to the suppression of the voice of
unorganized establishment, the Regional Director shall refer the the workers through the prissy observance of technical rules that will
application to the election officer for the conduct of a certification exalt procedure over substantial justice. (Port Workers Union of the
election. Philippines vs. Laguesma [1992])
Practice
In company XYZ, there are 100 R&E employees, no disqualifications.
1. How many does an LLO need to register as labor Union A? 20
2. Assuming XYZ is an organized establishment, what will the Med-Arbiter do if labor Union A requests to
be certified as the SEBA? Order a Petition for Certification Election
3. If the employer, during the CE, promotes Union A’s members to supervisory employees, will the
Certification Election push through if Union A has no members? Yes
4. If yes, who is the opponent of Union A? No Union
5. How many would be the basis for the first majority for the CE? 41
6. 50 voted. Union A got 25, No union got 20 votes, 5 votes are spoiled. Is Union A the SEBA? No
7. Assuming Union A won (without members), who will start the collective bargaining process? No one is
bound by the duty to collectively bargain i.e. to meet and convene since there is no one to meet and
convene with.
8. What will now be the effect after one year from the results of this CE? Any other legitimate labor org
may petition the BLR for a certification.
9. What is the liability of the employer if any? ULP for interfering with the rights of Union A to self-
organization if with bad faith and under the totality of circumstances.
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• The recognition or registration of unions is governed by DOLE

Department Order No. 40-03 (February 17, 2003) as amended.

• For membership in a labor union, that the individual is an employee

belonging to the bargaining unit that the union seeks to represent. Also,
an employee cannot be elected as a labor union officer if he/she is not a
member in good standing. If the employee no longer belongs to the
bargaining unit being represented by the labor union, he/she is deemed
automatically removed from the membership. Thus, an individual
cannot assert the right to represent a labor organization when he/she is
no longer a member or officer thereof. [South Cotabato vs. OIC
Montefalco, GR 235569, 13 December 2023]
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT

OLD Amended
Amended
• (d) "Code" means the Labor Code of the Philippines, as • (d) "Bargaining Unit" refers to a group of employees sharing mutual
amended. interests within a given employer unit, comprised of all or less than
all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any • (bbb) "Voluntary Recognition" refers to the
• (h) "Local Union" means any labor organization specific occupational or geographical grouping within such
operating at the enterprise level. employer unit. process by which a legitimate labor union is
• (j) "Legitimate Labor Organization" means any labor • (h) Certification Election" or "Consent Election" refers to the recognized by the employer as the exclusive
organization duly registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment and includes any branch, local or
process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
bargaining representative or agent in a
affiliate thereof. for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. A certification
election is ordered by the Department, while a consent election is
bargaining unit, reported with the Regional
• (t) "Lockout" means the temporary refusal of an
employer to furnish work as a result of a labor or industry
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the
intervention by the Department.
Office in accordance with Rule VII, Section
dispute. 2 of these Rules
• (j) "Collective Bargaining Agreement" or "CBA" refers to the
• (bb) "Organized Establishment" refers to a firm or contract between a legitimate labor union and the employer
company where there is a recognized or certified concerning wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions
exclusive bargaining agent. of employment in a bargaining unit.

• (t) Exclusive Bargaining Representative" refers to a legitimate labor

union duly recognized or certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative or agent of all the employees in a
bargaining unit.
 RULE XVI [DO 40-03]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• SECTION 2. Disclosure of information. — In collective bargaining, the

parties shall, at the request of either of them, make available such up-to-
date financial information on the economic situation of the undertaking,
which is normally submitted to relevant government agencies, as is
material and necessary for meaningful negotiations. Where the
disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial to the
undertaking, its communication may be made condition upon a
commitment that it would be regarded as confidential to the extent
required. The information to be made available may be agreed upon
between the parties to collective bargaining.
 RULE XVI [DO 40-03]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• SECTION 3. When single enterprise bargaining available. — Any

voluntarily recognized or certified labor union may demand
negotiations with its employer for terms and conditions of work
covering employees in the bargaining unit concerned x x x
• SECTION 6 x x
• Each employer or concerned labor union shall express its willingness or
refusal to participate in multi-employer bargaining in writing, addressed
to its corresponding exclusive bargaining agent or employer.
Negotiations may commence only with regard to respective employers
and labor unions who consent to participate in multi-employer
bargaining;
 RULE XVI [DO 40-03]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• Multi-employer bargaining exists when one or more unions negotiate with

one or more employers or employers’ organization/s. It is seen as a
mechanism to promote inclusive coverage of the benefits provided by
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). However, Philippine policy on
multi-employer bargaining is limited.
• As of 2021, in the Philippines, there is no successful implementation of
multi-employer bargaining and no CBAs were registered using this
mechanism.
• Strict guidelines on representation of exclusive bargaining agents on top of
the existing rules on determining the Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent at
the enterprise level is a sentiment shared by trade unions. Sections 5 and 6
of Rule XVI of DOLE Department Order No. 40-03 provides the policy
requirements for multi-employer bargaining.
 RULE XVI [DO 40-03]
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

• In 2005, the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) signed a

memorandum of agreement that resulted in one (1) CBA for the rank and file
employees of the parent and subsidiary companies of Banco de Oro (BDO).
Based on the agreement, the recognized bargaining unit shall cover all rank
and file employees of BDO Unibank affiliate and its subsidiaries, effectively
placing within the scope of the negotiated CBA employees of the subsidiary
corporations of BDO as well. The result of this CBA was a standardization of
wage increases, which benefited across all rank and files employees in BDO
Unibank and its affiliates and subsidiaries.
• Under current rules, the voluntary nature of multi-employer bargaining as
stipulated in the Department Order limits its application in practice.
Employers may simply refuse to be covered by multi-employer CBAs, unless
the duty to bargain is more specific, or at least compel employers to
negotiate.
 ART. 237
REGISTRY OF UNIONS AND FILE OF
COLLECTIVE B ARGAINING AGREEMENTS

• The Bureau shall keep a registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau shall also maintain a
file of all collective bargaining agreements and other related agreements and records of settlement
of labor disputes and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary
arbitrators. The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties under conditions prescribed
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, provided that no specific information submitted in
confidence shall be disclosed unless authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in any judicial
litigation, or when public interest or national security so requires.
• Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall
submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor
and Employment for registration accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two
conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional Offices shall act upon the application for registration of
such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. The
Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within
five (5) days from its submission.
 Jurisdictional
Duty to Bargain Collectively
Majority While it is a mutual obligation
of the parties to bargain, the
employer is not under any
obligation to initiate contract

Mutual obligation to meet and

Status negotiation unless jurisdictional
conditions are present [Kiok
convene promptly and expeditiously Loy Doctrine]
in good faith
Negotiating an agreement with
respect to wages, hours of work and
all other terms and conditions of
Proof of
employment including proposals for Majority
Purpose

adjusting any grievances or questions

arising under such agreement
Executing a contract incorporating Status
such agreements if requested by
either
party
Does not not compel any party to
agree to a proposal or to make any
Demand to With the jurisdictional
concession. requirements, collective
Bargain bargaining should begin
within 12 months from the
certification of the EBR
 (c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board
shall intervene upon request of either or
Art. 261. Procedure in Collective both parties or at its own initiative and
Bargaining. The following immediately call the parties to
procedures conciliation meetings. The Board shall
have the power to issue subpoenas
(a)When a party desires to negotiate requiring the attendance of the parties
an agreement, it shall serve a to such meetings. It shall be the duty of
written notice upon the other party the parties to participate fully and
with a statement of its proposals. promptly in the conciliation meetings the
The other party shall make a reply Board may call;
thereto not later than ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such
notice; (d) During the conciliation proceedings
(b)Should differences arise on the in the Board, the parties are prohibited
from doing any act which may disrupt or
basis of such notice and reply,
impede the early settlement of the
either party may request for a disputes; and
conference which shall begin not e) The Board shall exert all efforts to
later than ten (10) calendar days settle disputes amicably and encourage
from the date of request. the parties to submit their case to a
voluntary arbitrator.
 Collective Bargaining Process

Written notice Counter- NCMB

Conference intervention
with proposal Proposal [10 days]
[10 days] ,
if necessary

Contents of the CBA: (1) enumeration or reservation of management rights; (2) union
recognition and security; (3) wage and fringe benefits; (4) physical working conditions; (5)
particular matters affecting management; (6) grievance and arbitration; (7) duration of the
contract [RA 9165 mandates inclusion of company policy on drug use]
 RULE XVII
REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE
B ARGAINING AGREEMENTS

• SECTION 1. Where to file. — Within thirty (30) days from execution of a collective
bargaining agreement, the parties thereto shall submit two (2) duly signed copies of
the agreement to the Regional Office which issued the certificate of
registration/certificate of creation of chartered local of the labor union-party to the
agreement. Where the certificate of creation of the concerned chartered local was
issued by the Bureau, the agreement shall be filed with the Regional Office which has
jurisdiction over the place where it principally operates.

• Multi-employer collective bargaining agreements shall be filed with the Bureau.

 RULE XVII
REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE
B ARGAINING AGREEMENTS

• SECTION 2. Requirements for registration. — The application for CBA registration

shall be accompanied by the original and two (2) duplicate copies of the following
documents which must be certified under oath by the representative(s) of the
employer(s) and labor union(s) concerned
a. the collective bargaining agreement;
b. a statement that the collective bargaining agreement was posted in at least two (2)
conspicuous places in the establishment or establishments concerned for at least
five (5) days before its ratification; and
c. a statement that the collective bargaining agreement was ratified by the majority of
the employees in the bargaining unit of the employer or employers concerned
 ART. 238

• ART. 238. Prohibition on Certification Election

• The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other
action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective
bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and
256 of this Code.
 ART. 264 [253]

• Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively
shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during
its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or
modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date.
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 and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties
 ART. 265. [253-A]

• Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as
the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained
and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and
Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such
five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after
its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such
other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the
day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six
months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of a
deadlock in the renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties may
exercise their rights under this Code
 A R T. 2 6 8 R E P R E S E N TAT I O N I S S U E I N O R G A N I Z E D
E S TA B L I S H M E N T S

• In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a national union or federation which has
already issued a charter certificate to its local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter
which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation before the Department of Labor
and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement,
the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by
the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain
the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast
shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an election which provides
for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall
be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases
where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the
local chapters and members.
• At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed.
 CONTRACT BAR RULE

• RULE XVII, SECTION 7. Term of representation status; contract bar rule. — The
representation status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent which is a party to
a duly registered collective bargaining agreement shall be for a term of five
(5) years from the date of the effectivity of the collective bargaining agreement. No
petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent
or petition for certification election filed outside of the sixty-day period immediately
preceding the expiry date of such five-year term shall be entertained by the
Department.
 Sample CBA Timeline

Effectivity of CBA (January) Renegotiation of CBA Freedom Period

2014 2016 2018

2013 2015 2017

1st CBA: Jan 2013 – Dec

End of 3-year CBA (1st) End of 5-year EBR Term
2016

7
Credits to Atty. Ryan Quan
 Situation 1 Situation 2

No CBA yet Existing CBA

CBA-related concepts
Duty to bargain here
Duty to bargain here means obligation to meet
means obligation to meet and convene + not tp
and convene. terminate or modify CBA
Remember Kiok Loy: Since there was a refusal to
bargain, the NLRC issued an Order declaring the
Approval by majority of the Union’s draft as the CBA via Art. 262
members in the bargaining unit

Representation vs.
[5 days + 2 conspicuous places] 5 years vs.

Economic
3 years
Ratification & [Art. 265]
Registration of the If CBA is new, not If renegotiated within 6
renegotiated or months e.g. expires on

Registered with BLR or DOLE CBA extended, when

contract will take
Dec. 31, CBA dates back
to Jan. 1. If no CBA
within 30 days execution effect parties may concluded on June 30, no
agree. automatic retroaction

Retroactivity Rules
 RULE XVII

• SECTION 8. Re-negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. — All provisions of

a collective bargaining agreement, except the representation status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall, as a matter of right, be renegotiated not later than three (3)
years after its execution.

• The re-negotiated collective bargaining agreement shall be ratified and registered

with the same Regional Office where the preceding agreement was registered. The
same requirements and procedure in the registration of collective bargaining
agreements prescribed in the preceding rules shall be applied.
 ART. 273
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATION

• The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions

that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. They shall
establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from
the interpretation or implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.
• All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within
seven (7) calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be
referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 ART. 273
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATION

• For this purpose, parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and
designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, or
include in the agreement a procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary
Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall designate the Voluntary
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the
selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which shall
act with the same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators have
been selected by the parties as described above.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• In the absence of applicable provision in the collective bargaining agreement, a

grievance committee shall be created within ten (10) days from signing of the
collective bargaining agreement. The committee shall be composed of at least two (2)
representatives each from the members of the bargaining unit and the employer,
unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. The representatives from among the
members of the bargaining unit shall be designated by the union.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 2. Procedure in handling grievances. — In the absence of a specific

provision in the collective bargaining agreement or existing company practice
prescribing for the procedures in handling grievance, the following shall apply:

An employee shall present this grievance or complaint orally or in writing to the

shop steward. Upon receipt thereof, the shop steward shall verify the facts and
determine whether or not the grievance is valid.
If the grievance is valid, the shop steward shall immediately bring the complaint
to the employee's immediate supervisor. The shop steward, the employee and his
immediate supervisor shall exert efforts to settle the grievance at their level.
If no settlement is reached, the grievance shall be referred to the grievance
committee which shall have ten (10) days to decide the case.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 2. Procedure in handling grievances. — In the absence of a specific provision in the collective bargaining agreement or existing company practice
prescribing for the procedures in handling grievance, the following shall apply:

An employee shall present this grievance or complaint orally or in writing to the

shop steward. Upon receipt thereof, the shop steward shall verify the facts and
determine whether or not the grievance is valid.
If the grievance is valid, the shop steward shall immediately bring the complaint
to the employee's immediate supervisor. The shop steward, the employee and his
immediate supervisor shall exert efforts to settle the grievance at their level.
If no settlement is reached, the grievance shall be referred to the grievance
committee which shall have ten (10) days to decide the case.
• Where the issue involves or arises from the interpretation or implementation of a provision in the collective bargaining agreement, or from any order,
memorandum, circular or assignment issued by the appropriate authority in the establishment, and such issue cannot be resolved at the level of the shop
steward or the supervisor, the same may be referred immediately to the grievance committee.
 GRIEVANCE

(1) disputes arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective

Bargaining Agreement;
(2) arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article;
(3) Violations of CBA which do not refer to flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

These are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator.

 ART. 219

• (n) "Voluntary Arbitrator" means any person accredited by the Board as such, or any
person named or designated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the parties to
act as their Voluntary Arbitrator, or one chosen with or without the assistance of the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board, pursuant to a selection procedure
agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any official that may be
authorized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment to act as Voluntary Arbitrator
upon the written request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 3. Submission to voluntary arbitration. — Where grievance remains unresolved, either

party may serve notice upon the other of its decision to submit the issue to voluntary arbitration.
The notice shall state the issue or issues to be arbitrated, copy thereof furnished the board or the
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators named or designated in the collective
bargaining agreement.
• If the party upon whom the notice is served fails or refuses to respond favorably within seven (7)
days from receipt thereof, the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators designated in
the collective bargaining agreement shall commence voluntary arbitration proceedings. Where the
collective bargaining agreement does not so designate, the board shall call the parties and appoint a
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, who shall thereafter commence arbitration
proceedings in accordance with the proceeding paragraph.
• In instances where parties fail to select a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, the
regional branch of the Board shall designate the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators, as may be necessary, which shall have the same force and effect as if the parties have
selected the arbitrator.
 ART. 274
JURISDICTION OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS
AND PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS

• The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the
interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies
referred to in the immediately preceding article. Accordingly, violations of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no
longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of
Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 4. Jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. —

The voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall have exclusive and
original jurisdiction to hear and decide all grievances arising from the
implementation or interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies which
remain unresolved after exhaustion of the grievance procedure.
• They shall also have exclusive and original jurisdiction, to hear and decide wage
distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in organized
establishments, as well as unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and
implementation of the productivity incentive programs under R.A. 6971.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• The National Labor Relations Commission, its regional branches and Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes,
grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer
the same to the appropriate grievance machinery or voluntary arbitration provided
in the collective bargaining agreement.
• Upon agreement of the parties, any other labor dispute may be submitted to a
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. Before or at any stage of the
compulsory arbitration process, the parties may opt to submit their dispute to
voluntary arbitration.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 9. Cost of voluntary arbitration and voluntary arbitrator's fee. — The

parties to a collective bargaining agreement shall provide therein a proportionate
sharing scheme on the cost of voluntary arbitration including the voluntary
arbitrator's fee x x x Parties are encouraged to set aside funds to answer for the cost
of voluntary arbitration proceedings including voluntary arbitrator's fee. In the event
the said funds are not sufficient to cover such expenses, an amount by way of subsidy
taken out of the Special Voluntary Arbitration fund may be availed of by either or
both parties subject to the guidelines on voluntary arbitration to be issued by the
Secretary.
 RULE XIX
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

• SECTION 7. Finality of Award/Decision. — The decision, order, resolution or award of

the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall be final and executory after
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties and
it shall not be subject of a motion for reconsideration.

• SECTION 8. Execution of Award/Decision. — Upon motion of any interested party, the

voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region
where the movant resides, in case of the absence or incapacity for any reason of the
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators who issued the award or decision,
may issue a writ of execution requiring either the Sheriff of the Commission or regular
courts or any public official whom the parties may designate in the submission agreement
to execute the final decision, order or award.
 Rules on Retroactivity

Within 6 months after

After 6 months:
expiration: retroact to
agreement of the
the first day following
parties
the expiration

Arbitral Awards

After 6 months from No agreement

expiry of the CBA: between the parties: No CBA provision on
agreement of parties retroact to first day the effectivity: SOLE
after the 6-month determines
period
CASES IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING

ATTY. KRISTY JANE M. BALINO, LL.M

 Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Phils

In its letter to the union

Nestlé said that “unilateral grants, one-
time company grants, company-
initiated policies and programs, which include, but
are not limited to the Retirement Plan, Incidental Str
aight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium, are by thei
r very nature not proper subjects of CBA negotiation
s and therefore shall be excluded therefrom. This is
NOT a refusal to bargain. NOT a ULP
 PAL v. PALEA, March 12, 2008

PAL and PALEA entered into a CBA covering the period of 1986-
1989. Part of said agreement required PAL to pay its rank and file
employees the following bonuses x x 13th Month Pay x x prior to
the payment of the 13th month pay where those that are regular
would be eligible. Union filed ULP, LA dismissed the complaint.
Does the payment of 13th month pay apply to all employees?

SC: Yes. The CBA made its provision applicable to all employees in
the bargaining unit. ll employees in (sic) PAL are entitled to the
same benefit as they are within the same collective bargaining
unit and the entitlement to such benefit spills over to even non-
union members. Benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and
employees in the collective bargaining unit, including those who
do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization.
 FARLEY FULACHE v. ABS-CBN

Relative to drivers, cameramen editors that were

excluded from the CBA of ABS-CBN because
they were considered them temporary and not
regular employees. SC held that they are regular
employees entitled to the benefits of the CBA for
the ran-and-file employees. are members of the
appropriate bargaining unit because they are
regular rank-and-file employees and do not
belong to any of the excluded categories.
 San Miguel Foods v. San Miguel Corporation
Employees Union, October 5, 2007

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union - PTWGO (the Union), was the sole
bargaining agent of all the monthly paid employees of petitioner San Miguel
Foods, Incorporated (SMFI). Union brought a grievance against Finance
Manager Gideon Montesa. SMFI informed the Union that it planned to address
the grievance through a "work management review" but was delayed. Union
filed a case for ULP and discrimination. SMFI et al.'s motion to dismiss was granted
by the LA and ordered the remand of the case to the grievance machinery for
completion of the proceedings. Does the LA have jurisdiction? Yes. ULP case to
be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint should show prima
facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; AND
(2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA. the Union
charges SMFI to have promoted less senior employees, thus bypassing others
who were more senior and equally or more qualified. It may not be seriously
disputed that this charge is a gross or flagrant violation of the seniority rule under
the CBA, a ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.
Capitol Medical Center v. Trajano, June 30, 2005

Union sent request for a negotiation of their Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA). Capitol refused to bargain, filed with the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) a petition for cancellation of
certificate of registration. May the petition for cancellation
suspend bargaining?

SC: No. If a certification election may still be ordered despite the

pendency of a petition to cancel the union’s registration
certificate, more so should the collective bargaining process
continue despite its pendency. Unless its certificate of registration
and its status as the certified bargaining agent are revoked, the
Hospital is, by express provision of the law, duty bound to
collectively bargain with the Union.
 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v.
Confesor, June 16, 2004

•August 1990: Standard Chartered Bank (the Bank) and the Standard
Chartered Bank Employees Union (the Union) signed a five-year Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with a provision to renegotiate after three
years.
•February 18, 1993: Union sent proposals to the Bank covering political
and economic provisions for renegotiation.
•February 24, 1993: The Bank responded to the Union's proposals.
•March 12, 1993: Parties set ground rules; non-economic provisions
discussed.
•May 18, 1993: Negotiation for economic provisions commenced.
•June 15, 1993: Deadlock reached on economic provisions, Union
suggested a third-party mediator.
 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v.
Confesor, June 16, 2004

June 21, 1993: Union filed a Notice of Strike, Bank filed a complaint for Unfair
Labor Practice (ULP).
•July 21, 1993: Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
•October 29, 1993: Secretary of Labor issued an order for both parties to execute
a CBA.
•March 22, 1994: Bank and Union signed the CBA, and the wage increase was
implemented.
•April 28, 1994: Union filed a petition for certiorari alleging ULP against the Bank.
•December 16, 1993: Secretary of Labor issued a resolution denying the motions
for reconsideration.
•February 10, 1994: Second motion for reconsideration was denied.
•The Court ruled in favor of the Bank, finding no evidence of ULP and dismissing
the charges from both parties.
 HALAGUEÑA, et al., and other flight attendants of Philippine
Airlines v. Philippine Airlines, October 2, 2009

2001:
•July 11: PAL and FASAP (union representing flight attendants) enter a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) incorporating terms and conditions for 2000-2005.
•Section 144 of the CBA sets different mandatory retirement ages: 55 for females and 60 for males.
2003:
•July 22: Female flight attendants file a letter claiming gender discrimination due to the different
retirement ages in the CBA and demand equal treatment.
2004:
•July 12: FASAP submits proposals for the 2004-2005 CBA negotiations, including renegotiating Section
144.
•July 29: Female flight attendants file a petition for declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City, arguing Section 144 is discriminatory and requesting its nullification.
•August 9: RTC issues an order upholding its jurisdiction over the case, stating the issue involves the
constitutionality of the CBA provision.
•August 10: RTC issues a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining PAL from implementing Section
144.
•October 8: PAL files a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging
the RTC's jurisdiction and seeking to lift the TRO.
 HALAGUEÑA, et al., and other flight attendants of Philippine
Airlines v. Philippine Airlines, October 2, 2009

2005:
•August 31: CA issues a decision, ruling the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case as it involves a labor dispute, and annuls
the RTC's orders.
2006:
•March 7: CA denies the female flight attendants' motion for reconsideration.
[Year not mentioned in the excerpt]:
•Female flight attendants file a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of
discretion by denying the RTC's jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Decision:
•The Supreme Court rules in favor of the female flight attendants.
•The Court states the RTC has jurisdiction as the case involves the constitutionality of the CBA provision, not just its
interpretation or implementation.
•The Court declares the CA's decision and resolution are reversed and sets them aside.
•The case is remanded back to the RTC for further proceedings on the merits of the petition for declaratory relief.
Issue:
•Whether Section 144 of the CBA, which sets different mandatory retirement ages for male and female flight attendants, is
discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Resolution:
•The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the RTC for further proceedings on the merits of the petition for
declaratory relief, meaning a final decision on the discriminatory nature of the provision has not been reached.
 PASSI v. Boclot

Boclot claimed that he was denied rights and

privileges of a regular employee, including those
granted under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) such as wage increase;
medical, dental and hospitalization benefits;
vacation and sick leaves; uniforms, Christmas gifts,
productivity bonus, accident insurance, special
separation pays, and others. The CBA had a
provision where in after a while, workers attain
regular status
 FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(FVCLU- PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-
Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-
SIGLO), November 27, 2009

•FVCLU-PTGWO (union) signs a 5-year CBA (collective bargaining agreement) with

FVC Philippines, Inc. (company), effective February 1, 1998, to January 30, 2003.
2001, End of Year 3:
•FVCLU-PTGWO and the company renegotiate the CBA, extending its duration by 4
months to May 31, 2003 (amended CBA).
2003, January 21:
•SANAMA-SIGLO (another union) files a petition for certification election within 60
days of the original CBA end date (January 30, 2003).
•FVCLU-PTGWO argues the petition is outside the 60-day freedom periodbecause
it should be based on the amended CBA end date (May 31, 2003).
2003, June 17:
•Med-Arbiter dismisses SANAMA-SIGLO's petition as filed outside the 60-day
window.
 FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(FVCLU- PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-
Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-
SIGLO), November 27, 2009

2003, August 6:
•DOLE Secretary reverses the Med-Arbiter, ordering a certification election based
on the original CBA end date.
2003, November 6:
•Acting DOLE Secretary reverses the previous decision, siding with FVCLU-PTGWO
and dismissing the petition based on the amended CBA end date.
2004, January 30:
•DOLE Secretary denies SANAMA-SIGLO's motion for reconsideration.
2006, July 25:
•Court of Appeals (CA) rules in favor of SANAMA-SIGLO, stating the original 5-year
CBA term determines the exclusive bargaining representation status and
the freedom period for filing a petition.
 FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(FVCLU- PTGWO) v. Sama-Samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa Sa FVC-
Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-FVC-
SIGLO), November 27, 2009

2007, January 15:

•CA denies FVCLU-PTGWO's motion for reconsideration.
2007, October 10:
•SANAMA-SIGLO informs the Court they have abandoned the challenge due to
internal issues and a new CBA signed by FVCLU-PTGWO and the company.
2008:
•Supreme Court affirms the CA decision, clarifying that:
• A union's exclusive bargaining representation is limited to 5 years,
regardless of CBA extensions.
• Another union can challenge the representation within 60 days of the
original CBA end date.

•The Supreme Court upholds the CA decision, but acknowledges SANAMA-SIGLO's

abandonment of the challenge.
 RFM Corporation v. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU,
February 4, 2009

There were CBAs between RFM’s its Flour Division and SFI Feeds
Division and their respective labor unions effective for five years,
from July 1, 2000 up to June 30, 2005. There was a provision:
Special Holidays with Pay – The COMPANY agrees to make
payment to all daily paid employees, in respect of any of the days
enumerated hereunto if declared as special holidays by the
national government: c) December 31. in 2000, December 31 which
fell on a Sunday was declared by the national government as a special
holiday to which unions claimed payment. Are the unions entitled to
payment?

SC: Yes. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, as in the herein questioned provision,
the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. The CBA is the law between the
parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its provisions.
 Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010

•1997:
• Negotiations for CBA:
• Petitioner Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) led by
President Juanito S. Facundo negotiated with Bayer for a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
• EUBP rejected Bayer's 9.9% wage-increase proposal, resulting in a
bargaining deadlock.
• EUBP staged a strike, leading the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Secretary to assume jurisdiction.
 Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010

•1998:
• Arbitral Award:
• DOLE Secretary issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer
to execute a CBA retroactive to January 1, 1997.
• Union Split:
• Disagreement between Facundo's leadership and Remigio's group
escalated.
• Remigio's splinter group solicited support for disaffiliation from
FFW and the formation of a new union, leading to conflict.
• Demand Conflicts:
• Both groups demanded recognition from Bayer and remittance of
union dues.
• Legal actions, including complaints for unfair labor practices and
grievance meetings, ensued.
 Employees Union of Bayer v. Bayer Phils., December 6, 2010

•1999:
• Dismissals and Complaints:
• Labor Arbiter dismissed ULP complaints citing lack of jurisdiction, sparking appeals
and disputes.
•2000:
• Resolution and Appeals:
• Regional Director ordered recognition of EUBP's officers in CBA administration.
• Conflict continued as Bayer signed a new CBA with Remigio's group, ratified by the
majority despite legal challenges.
• Dismissals and denials of appeals led to a Rule 65 petition to the Court of Appeals.
• CA upheld previous rulings based on issues related to intra-union disputes and
jurisdiction.
2003:
• Supreme Court partly granted the petition, affirming unfair labor practices by Bayer,
Lonishen, and Amistoso.
• Dismissals and decisions against Remigio and Villareal in the case were upheld, leading
to nominal damages awarded to petitioners.
 General Milling Corporation v. CA, February 11,
2004

On April 28, 1989, GMC and the union concluded a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) which included the issue of representation effective for a
term of three years. The CBA was effective for three 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, which was denied by the company. Is the three year
duration valid?

SC: No. 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. 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
 Malayan Employees Association v. Malayan Insurance Co., February 2, 2010

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Provision:

•The union has a CBA with the company that grants union officials 90 "man-days"
per year for union leave.
•The CBA requires prior notice for availing union leave, but is silent on prior
approval.
Company Rule:
•In November 2002, the company implemented a rule requiring prior
approvalfrom the department head before availing union leave.
•The union did not object to this rule until 2004.
Mangalino's Case:
•In January and February 2004, Mangalino, a union officer, applied for union leave
but his applications were disapproved by his department head due to
understaffing.
•Mangalino took the leave regardless of the disapproval.
•The company suspended Mangalino for one week for the first offense and one
month for the second.
 Malayan Employees Association v. Malayan Insurance Co., February 2, 2010

Grievance Procedure and Voluntary Arbitration:

•The union filed a grievance and went through all internal processes.
•The dispute went to voluntary arbitration on the validity of the suspensions and
backpay for Mangalino.
•The voluntary arbitrators ruled that the first suspension was invalid, the second
suspension was valid but excessive, and awarded Mangalino 27 days of backpay.
•One arbitrator dissented, arguing that both suspensions were valid due to
Mangalino's disregard for company rules.
 Malayan Employees Association v. Malayan Insurance Co., February 2, 2010

•The company appealed the arbitration decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
•The CA ruled in favor of the company, upholding the validity of both suspensions
based on the company's right to manage its business and regulate union leave.
•The union appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed grave
abuse of discretion.
SC:
The Supreme Court denied the union's petition due to:
• Procedural reasons: The petition was filed late and should have been
under Rule 45 instead of Rule 65.
• Lack of merit: The Court agreed with the CA that the company had the
right to implement the prior approval rule and that Mangalino was
insubordinate for taking leave without approval.
Fallo:
•The Supreme Court's decision upholds the CA's ruling, making both suspensions
of Mangalino valid.
 Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Grievance Machinery in the Remerco

Garments Case:
1992-1994:
•Strike declared illegal, union officers dismissed, employees recalled on piece-rate
basis.
•CBA: Existed, silent on piece-rate.
1995:
•Union files strike notice claiming unfair labor practices due to salary scheme
change without consultation.
•RGMI files lockout notice.
•Union goes on strike, RGMI transfers factory site.
•Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction, orders employees to return to work and
submit position papers.
•Grievance Machinery: Not mentioned if utilized.
 Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010

1996:
•Secretary of Labor:
• Finds no lockout by RGMI.
• Upholds piece-rate based on time and motion study despite CBA.
• Orders employees to return and RGMI to pay back wages (piece-rate
basis).
•Neither party appeals Secretary of Labor's order.
1995 (October):
•Petitioners (employees) file complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
benefits based on daily rate (as per CBA).
1999:
•Labor Arbiter orders respondents to pay petitioners:
• Unpaid salaries (daily rate + CBA increase)
• Benefits
• Separation pay
• Attorney's fees
 Santuyo v. Remerco Garments, March 22, 2010

Basis: Violations of CBA.

2006:
•Court of Appeals (CA) reverses, finds labor arbiter lacked jurisdiction.
•Reason: Dispute involved CBA interpretation/implementation, should be referred to grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration as per CBA and Labor Code (Articles 217(c), 260, 261).
2011:
•Supreme Court affirms CA.
•Reason:
• Dispute involved CBA interpretation (piece-rate vs. daily rate).
• Labor arbiter lacked jurisdiction due to:
• Articles 217(c), 260, and 261 of the Labor Code: Require referral to grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration for CBA-related disputes.
• Secretary of Labor's 1996 order resolving the dispute became final and binding as neither party
appealed.
• Petitioners were bound by the union (their bargaining agent) and the order applied to them.
• Principle of res judicata barred the complaint as the Secretary of Labor's order already settled
the matter.
 Insular vs. Insular

The labor code does not prohibit a union from offering and
agreeing to reduce wages and benefits of the employees.
The right to free collective bargaining, as stated in
jurisprudence, includes the right to suspend it.

Furthermore, although the MOA was not ratified in

accordance to its CBL, the same does not render it invalid.
The record shows that after the MOA was signed, the
members of the union individually signed the reconfirmation
of employment which contained the new salary and benefits
scheme.
 Cirtek Employees Labor Union v. Cirtek Electronics, November 15, 2010

1.January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2005: Cirtek Electronics, Inc. had an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) with Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers.
2.April 26, 2004: Petitioner declares a bargaining deadlock and files a Notice of Strike, while respondent files a
Notice of Lockout on June 16, 2004.
3.June 20, 2005: Petitioner goes on strike, leading to the Secretary of Labor assuming jurisdiction and issuing a
Return to Work Order.
4.January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005: Negotiations lead to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for wage
increases.
5.March 16, 2006: The Secretary of Labor resolves the CBA deadlock by awarding wage increases effective from
2004 and 2005 as per the MOA.
6.August 12, 2008: Respondent's petition for reconsideration is denied, prompting a petition for certiorari.
7.September 24, 2009: The Court of Appeals rules in favor of respondent, setting aside the Secretary of Labor's
decision.
8.December 2, 2009: Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied, leading to a new petition.
Issues and Resolution:
1.Whether the Secretary of Labor is authorized to give an award higher than that agreed upon in the MOA.
2.Whether the MOA was entered into and ratified in bad faith, without proper representation.
Resolution:
The Court affirms the Secretary of Labor's authority to award higher increases and considers the MOA as a valid
contract obligation. The MOA, lacking proper representation, does not limit the Secretary's power in resolving the
CBA deadlock. The CBA, imbued with public interest, must be construed liberally for the common good. The Court
reverses the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstates the Secretary of Labor's order.
 Eastern Telecoms v. Eastern Telecoms Employees
Union, February 8, 2012

Eastern Telecoms Employees Union (ETEU) is the certified exclusive

bargaining agent of the company’s rank and file employees. It
has an existing CBA with the company to expire in the year 2004
with a Side Agreement signed on September 3, 2001. Eastern
wanted to defer payment of the 2003 14th, 15th and 16th month
bonuses sometime in April 2004 because of financial difficulties.
ETEU filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair labor practice
for failure of ETPI to pay the bonuses in gross violation of the
economic provision of the existing CBA. Are the workers entitled to
the money claims?

SC: Yes. The provision, which was similarly worded, states:

Employment-Related Bonuses - The Company confirms that the
14th, 15th and 16th month bonuses (other than the 13th month
pay) are granted of the CBA was clear.
PNCC Skyway Traffic Management & Security Division Workers Organization v.
PNCC Skyway Corp., February 17, 2010

•Petitioner (PSTMSDWO) is a union representing security guards of respondent

(PNCC Skyway Corporation).
•A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existed between the parties, including
provisions on vacation leave and security license expenses.
•Respondent issued a memorandum scheduling all employees' vacation leave for
2004.
•The union objected, arguing they had the right to schedule their own leave and that
respondent aimed to avoid converting unused leave to cash.
•The union also demanded respondent cover the cost of in-service training for
security license renewal.
•The disagreement went to voluntary arbitration.
•The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union on both issues.
•Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which overturned the
arbitrator's decision.
•The union appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).
PNCC Skyway Traffic Management & Security Division Workers Organization v.
PNCC Skyway Corp., February 17, 2010

Issues:
1.Vacation Leave Scheduling: Did the CBA give the union or the company the right to
schedule vacation leave?
2.Security License Training Expenses: Who was responsible for paying for the security
guards' in-service training for license renewal?
Rulings:
1.Vacation Leave Scheduling: SC sided with the respondent, finding the CBA clearly gave
the company the right to schedule vacation leave, while considering employee
preferences. The union's argument for interpretation in their favor was rejected as the
CBA language was unambiguous.
2.Security License Training Expenses: SC sided with the union, finding the CBA provision
requiring employees to cover training costs violated the law. The SC ruled that the law
mandated employers, not individual employees, to bear the cost of in-service training for
security license renewal. Additionally, the company's prior conduct of providing such
training was seen as an implicit acknowledgment of this legal responsibility.
 Supreme Steel v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Supreme, March 28, 2011

In July 2005, the respondent filed a notice of strike due to alleged violations of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by the petitioner, leading to a case referred for
arbitration by the Secretary of Labor. The key issues raised included denial of wage
increases, contracting out labor against CBA provisions, failure to provide shuttle service,
refusal to cover medical expenses, denying paternity leave benefits, discrimination and
harassment, and non-implementation of wage orders.
The respondent claimed that the petitioner denied wage increases to specific employees,
hired temporary workers against CBA terms, failed to provide a shuttle service, refused to
cover medical expenses, withheld wages during grievance meetings, prevented
employees from working during a brownout, and dismissed an employee illegally. The
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the respondent on most
issues. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed only some of the NLRC's decisions,
notably on wage increases, shuttle services, medical expense coverage, and time off for
grievances. The CA also found the dismissal of an employee as illegal due to lack of proper
medical certification.
 Supreme Steel v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Supreme, March 28, 2011

Petitioner's appeal to the CA was mostly rejected, with the ruling favoring the
respondent on various CBA violations. The Court emphasized the importance of
following CBA provisions, especially regarding wage increases, shuttle services,
medical coverage, and grievance procedures. The CA also upheld the limited
power of management prerogative in the face of CBA regulations. Although the
CA initially ruled on both wage orders, the Supreme Court modified the
decision, exempting the petitioner from implementing the 2nd wage order
across the board due to lack of established company practice in this regard.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the principles of following CBA provisions,
protecting employee rights, and ensuring fair labor practices in resolving
collective bargaining and grievance issues.
 Supreme Steel v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Supreme, March 28, 2011

Timeline:
1.Notice of Strike Filed: Respondent filed a notice of strike due to alleged CBA violations by petitioner.
2.Arbitration: Secretary of Labor certified the case for NLRC arbitration.
3.Key Issues Raised:
1. Denial of wage increases
2. Contracting out labor
3. Failure to provide shuttle service
4. Refusal to cover medical expenses
5. Denying paternity leave benefits
6. Discrimination and harassment
7. Non-implementation of wage orders
4.NLRC Ruling: NLRC ruled in favor of respondent on most issues.
5.CA Decision: CA affirmed some NLRC decisions on wage increases, shuttle services, medical
coverage, and grievance procedures.
6.Supreme Court Intervention: Supreme Court modified the CA decision on wage orders, exemting
petitioner from implementing the 2nd wage order across the board.
7.Conclusion: Upheld the importance of following CBA provisions, protecting employee rights, and
ensuring fair labor practices in resolving collective bargaining and grievance issues.
Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University Faculty and Staff Association, March 12,
2014

•December 2003: Petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines and Respondent Wesleyan University-

Philippines Faculty and Staff Association signed a 5-year CBA effective June 1, 2003 until May 31, 2008.
•August 16, 2005: Petitioner issued a Memorandum providing guidelines on vacation and sick leave
credits. Respondent objected to the changes stated in the Memorandum.
•August 25, 2005: Respondent's President wrote to Petitioner expressing dissatisfaction with the
changes made.
•February 8, 2006: Labor Management Committee Meeting advised Respondent to file a grievance
complaint on the leave policy and announced a plan for a one-retirement policy.
•November 2, 2006: Voluntary Arbitrator ruled against the one-retirement policy and the
Memorandum, ordering the reinstatement of the previous policy.
•September 25, 2007: Court of Appeals affirmed the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision.
•February 5, 2008: Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals.
Issues Raised by Petitioner:
•Affidavits as Evidence: Whether the affidavits submitted are substantial evidence of the practice of
granting two retirement benefits.
•Existence of Two Retirement Plans: Whether the two-retirement policy is established and authorized.
•Burden of Proof: Whether petitioner needs to prove that no Board Resolution authorized the two
retirement benefits.
Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University Faculty and Staff Association, March 12,
2014

•Legality of Memorandum: Whether the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 is contrary to existing
policies.
Arguments:
•Petitioner: Claims there is only one retirement plan, disputes the established two-retirement benefits
practice, and defends the validity of the Memorandum.
•Respondent: Affirms the existence of two retirement plans, presents evidence of the established
practice, and argues against the validity of the Memorandum.
Resolution:
•On Retirement Benefits: The Court upheld the practice of two retirement benefits, supported by
substantial evidence.
•On Memorandum: The Court found the Memorandum contrary to the CBA and ruled against its
validity.

SC: The Petition was denied, affirming the decisions of the Court of Appeals
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union v. URC,

Generally, a wage increase not included in the Collective

Bargaining Agreement is not demandable. However, if it was
withheld by the employer as part of its unfair labor practice
against the union members, this benefit should be granted.