Manila Fashions nc. v. NLRC

FACTS:

Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Manila Fashions, Inc., through its president, Zamora, filed a complaint before the LA on behalf of its one 150 members who were regular employees of Manila Fashions, Inc. The complaint charged petitioner with non-compliance with Wage Order mandating a P12 increase in.

As a result, complainants’ basic pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, legal holiday pay, night shift differential and overtime pay were all underpaid.

Manila Fashions, Inc. countered that the failure to comply with the pertinent Wage Order was brought about by the tremendous losses suffered by it which were aggravated when the workers staged a strike on account of the non-adjustment of their basic pay.

To forestall continuous suspension/closure of business operations, which petitioner did for three (3) months, the strikers sent a notice that they were willing to condone the implementation of the increase. The condonation was distinctly stated in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of their CBA.

ISSUE/S: Was the condonation of the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-02 and 02-A contained in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of the CBA valid?

RULING:  No, the condonation appearing in Sec. 3, Art. VIII, of the CBA did not exempt petitioner from compliance with Wage Order No. NCR-02 and 02-A.

A Collective Bargaining Agreement refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, including mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration machineries. As in all other contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

The CBA questioned provision is a void because by agreeing to condone the implementation of the Wage Order the parties thereby contravened its mandate on wage increase of P12. It is only the Tripartite Wage Productivity Board of the DOLE that could approve exemption of an establishment from coverage of a Wage Order.

If petitioner is a financially distressed company then it should have applied for a wage exemption so that it could meet its labor costs without endangering its viability or its very existence upon which both management and labor depend for a living. SOLGEN emphasizes the point that parties to a CBA may not, by themselves, set a wage lower than the minimum wage. To do so would render nugatory the purpose of a wage exemption, not to mention the possibility that employees may be duped or be unwittingly put in a position to accept a lower wage.

As regards the alternative argument of petitioner that the computation of the award was erroneous and arbitrary, it must be rejected outright as it was apparently never brought to the attention of respondent NLRC. Consequently, it cannot be raised for the first time before this Court since that would be offensive to the basic rule of fair play, justice and due process. Moreover, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of respondent NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence but confined merely to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.