Topic: Deadlock Bar
Rule
FACTS:
Divine
Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) was certified as the sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the Divine Word University. Subsequently, the Divine Union
submitted its collective bargaining proposals March 7, 1985
The
University replied and requested a preliminary conference. However, two days
before the scheduled conference the DWUEU’s resigned vice-president Mr. Brigido
Urminita wrote a letter addressed to the University unilaterally withdrawing
the CBA proposals. Consequently, the preliminary conference was cancelled.
After
almost three years, or on March 11, 1988, the DWUEU, which had by then
affiliated with the Associated Labor Union (ALU), requested a conference with
the University for the purpose of continuing the collective bargaining
negotiations. A follow-up letter was sent regarding their request but to no
avail.
DWUEU
-ALU filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department
of Labor and Employment a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and unfair labor practice acts, specifically, refusal to bargain,
discrimination and coercion on employees.
After
the filing of the notice of strike, a conference was held which led to the
conclusion of an agreement between the University and DWUEU-ALU on May 10, 1888
However,
it turned out that an hour before the May 10, 1988 agreement was concluded, the
University had filed a petition for certification election
On
the other hand, on May 19, 1988, DWUEU-ALU, consonant with the agreement,
submitted its collective bargaining proposals. These were ignored by the
University.
Med-Arbiter
Milado, acting on the University’s petition for certification election, issued
an Order directing the conduct of a certification election to be participated
in by DWUEU-ALU and “no union,” after he found the petition to be
“well-supported in fact and in law.
Said
Order prompted the DWUEU-ALU to file with the Secretary of Labor an urgent
motion seeking to enjoin Milado from further acting on the matter of the
certification election.
The Divine Word
University Independent Faculty and Employees Union (DWUIFEU), which was
registered earlier that day, filed a motion for intervention alleging that it
had “at least 20% of the rank and file employees” of the University.
The Secretary of Labor dismissed not only the case filed by DWUEU-ALU for unfair labor practice on the ground of the union’s failure to prove the commission of the unfair
labor practice acts specifically complained of but also the complaint filed by
the University for unfair labor practices and illegal strike for “obvious lack
of merit brought about by its utter failure to submit evidence”
The DWUEU-ALU
had filed a second notice of strike charging the University with violation of
the return-to-work order which was previously ordered by the Secretary of Labor
and unfair labor practices such as dismissal of union officers, coercion of
employees and illegal suspension
Acting Secretary
then concluded that for reneging on the agreement of May 10, 1988 and for its
“reluctance and subscription to legal delay,” the University should be
“declared in default.” He also maintained that since under the circumstances
the University cannot claim deprivation of due process, the Office of the
Secretary of Labor may rightfully impose the Union’s May 19, 1988 collective
bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio.
ISSUE: Whether or not
there was a deadlock or an impasse in the collective bargaining process
RULING:
YES.
A thorough study of the records reveals that there was no “reasonable effort at
good faith bargaining” especially on the part of the University. Its
indifferent attitude towards collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the
failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement. As it was evident that
unilateral moves were being undertaken only by the DWUEU-ALU, there was no
“counteraction” of forces or an impasse to speak of. While collective
bargaining should be initiated by the union, there is a corresponding
responsibility on the part of the employer to respond in some manner to such
acts.
However, the Court cannot help but
notice that the DWUEU was not entirely blameless in the matter of the delay in
the bargaining process. While it is true that as early as March 7, 1985, said
union had submitted its collective bargaining proposals and that, its
subsequent withdrawal by the DWUEU Vice President being unauthorized and
therefore ineffective, the same proposals could be considered as subsisting,
the fact remains that said union remained passive for three years. The records
do not show that during this three-year period, it exerted any effort to pursue
collective bargaining as a means of attaining better terms of employment.
It was only after its affiliation with
the ALU that the same union, through the ALU Director for Operations, requested
an “initial conference” for the purpose of collective bargaining. That the
DWUEU abandoned its collective bargaining proposals prior to its affiliation
with ALU is further confirmed by the fact that in the aforequoted May 10, 1988
agreement with the University, said Union bound itself to submit a new set of
proposals on May 13, 1988. Under the circumstances, the agreement of May 10,
1988 may as well be considered the written notice to bargain referred to in the
aforequoted Art. 250(a) of the Labor Code, which thereby set into motion the
machinery for collective bargaining, as in fact, on May 19, 1988, DWUEU-ALU
submitted its collective bargaining proposals.
Be that as it may, the Court is not
inclined to rule that there has been a deadlock or an impasse in the collective
bargaining process. As the Court earlier observed, there has not been a
“reasonable effort at good faith bargaining” on the part of the University.
While DWUEU-ALU was opening all possible avenues for the conclusion of an
agreement, the record is replete with evidence on the University’s reluctance
and thinly disguised refusal to bargain with the duly certified bargaining
agent, such that the inescapable conclusion is that the University evidently
had no intention of bargaining with it. Thus, while the Court recognizes that
technically, the University has the right to file the petition for
certification election as there was no bargaining deadlock to speak of, to
grant its prayer that the herein assailed Orders be annulled would put an
unjustified premium on bad faith bargaining. Bad faith on the part of the
University is further exemplified by the fact that an hour before the start of
the May 10, 1988 conference, it surreptitiously filed the petition for
certification election. And yet during said conference, it committed itself to
“sit down” with the Union. Obviously, the University tried to preempt the
conference which would have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition
for certification election. In so doing, the University failed to act in
accordance with Art. 252 of the Labor Code which defines the meaning of the
duty to bargain collectively as “the performance of a mutual obligation to meet
and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith.” Moreover, by filing the
petition for certification election while agreeing to confer with the
DWUEU-ALU, the University violated the mandate of Art. 19 of the Civil Code
that “(e)very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.”
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC is applicable in the
instant case considering that the facts therein have also been indubitably
established in this case. These factors are: (a) the union is the duly
certified bargaining agent; (b) it made a definite request to bargain and
submitted its collective bargaining proposals, and (c) the University made no
counter proposal whatsoever. As we said in Kiok Loy, “[a] company’s refusal to
make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining
process, may indicate bad faith and this is especially true where the Union’s
request for a counter proposal is left unanswered.”
No comments:
Post a Comment