Topic: Contract Bar
Rule
FACTS:
1.
Salvador Abtria, then President of respondent union,
Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran, initiated the renegotiation of
its Collective Bargaining Agreement with petitioner Colegio de San Juan de
Letran for the last two (2) years of the CBA's five (5) year lifetime from
1989-1994.
2. On
the same year, the union elected a new set of officers wherein private
respondent Eleanor Ambas emerged as the newly elected President.
3.
Ambas wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but
petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was already prepared
for signing by the parties.
4. Petitioner
accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the National Labor
Relations Commission.
5.
Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga: decided in favor of the
petitioner.
6.
However, the Labor Arbiter's decision was reversed on appeal
before the NLRC.
7.
The union notified the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) of its intention to strike on the grounds (sic) of petitioner's:
non-compliance with the NLRC (1) order to delete the name of Atty. Federico
Leynes as the union's legal counsel; and (2) refusal to bargain.
8.
The union filed a notice of strike.
9.
The union received petitioner's letter dismissing Ambas for
alleged insubordination. Hence, the union amended its notice of strike to
include Ambas' dismissal.
10.
Both parties again discussed the ground rules for the CBA
renegotiation. However, petitioner stopped the negotiations after it
purportedly received information that a new group of employees had filed a
petition for certification election.
11.
The union finally struck.
12. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction and ordered all striking
employees including the union president to return to work and for petitioner to
accept them back under the same terms and conditions before the actual strike.
13.
Secretary of Labor and Employment: issued an order declaring
petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice on two counts and directing the
reinstatement of private respondent Ambas with backwages.
14.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied.
15.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUES
1.
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice
by refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the
ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) upon mere
information that a petition for certification has been filed by another
legitimate labor organization?
2.
Whether or not the termination of the union president amounts
to an interference of the employees' right to self-organization?
RULING:
1.
Yes, petitioner Colegio De San Juan De Letran is guilty of unfair labor
practice.
Yes,
because Petitioner's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is
obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the
latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union,
petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. This inaction on the part
of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March
13, 1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of
Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing
to file its reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code
governing the procedure in collective bargaining, to wit:
Art.
250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following procedures shall be
observed in collective bargaining:
(a)
When a party
desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the
other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply
thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.
2.Yes, the dismissal
was effected in violation of the employees' right to self-organization.
Yes, because the factual backdrop of
the termination of Ms. Ambas leads us to no other conclusion that she was
dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right
of her co-workers at the bargaining table. Ms. Ambas, at the time of her
dismissal, had been working for the petitioner for ten (10) years already. In
fact, she was a recipient of a loyalty award. Moreover, for the past ten (10)
years her working schedule was from Monday to Friday. However, things began to
change when she was elected as union president and when she started negotiating
for a new CBA. Thus, it was when she was the union president and during the
period of tense and difficult negotiations when her work schedule was altered
from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to Saturdays. When she did not budge,
although her schedule was changed, she was outrightly dismissed for alleged
insubordination.
The dismissal of Ms. Ambas was
clearly designed to frustrate the Union in its desire to forge a new CBA with
the College that is reflective of the true wishes and aspirations of the Union
members. Her dismissal was merely a subterfuge to get rid of her, which smacks
of a pre-conceived plan to oust her from the premises of the College. It has
the effect of busting the Union, stripping it of its strong-willed leadership.
When management refused to treat the charge of insubordination as a grievance
within the scope of the Grievance Machinery, the action of the College in
finally dismissing her from the service became arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical, and therefore violated Ms. Ambas' right to due process
No comments:
Post a Comment