The NLRC ruled that Top Form did not commit unfair labor practices of bargaining in bad faith or discriminating against employees. While Top Form promised to implement wage increases across-the-board during negotiations, this was not incorporated into the finalized CBA as it should have been if the union wanted it enforced. The union had opportunities to insist this promise be added to the CBA but did not. As the CBA is the agreement that governs the parties, Top Form was adhering to the law by only following the provisions within the CBA when implementing the wage orders. The NLRC found Top Form was not required to implement the proposed wage increase structure from negotiations that was excluded from the signed CBA.
Original Description:
digest
Original Title
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing - UWP v NLRC
The NLRC ruled that Top Form did not commit unfair labor practices of bargaining in bad faith or discriminating against employees. While Top Form promised to implement wage increases across-the-board during negotiations, this was not incorporated into the finalized CBA as it should have been if the union wanted it enforced. The union had opportunities to insist this promise be added to the CBA but did not. As the CBA is the agreement that governs the parties, Top Form was adhering to the law by only following the provisions within the CBA when implementing the wage orders. The NLRC found Top Form was not required to implement the proposed wage increase structure from negotiations that was excluded from the signed CBA.
The NLRC ruled that Top Form did not commit unfair labor practices of bargaining in bad faith or discriminating against employees. While Top Form promised to implement wage increases across-the-board during negotiations, this was not incorporated into the finalized CBA as it should have been if the union wanted it enforced. The union had opportunities to insist this promise be added to the CBA but did not. As the CBA is the agreement that governs the parties, Top Form was adhering to the law by only following the provisions within the CBA when implementing the wage orders. The NLRC found Top Form was not required to implement the proposed wage increase structure from negotiations that was excluded from the signed CBA.
Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing - UWP v ISSUE+RULING
NLRC Whether or not Top Form committed an unfair labor practice by
bargaining in bad faith and discriminating against its employees Facts: NO, Top Form did not commit the unfair labor practices of bargaining in bad faith and discriminating against its employees for Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United implementing the wage orders pursuant to law. Workers of the Philippines (SMTFM) was the certified collective bargaining representative of all regular rank and file employees of - The management’s promise to obligate itself to grant automatic private respondent Top Form Manufacturing Philippines, Inc. At the across-the-board wage increases upon the issuance of wage collective bargaining negotiation held on February 27, 1990, the parties orders should have been incorporated in the CBA, which the agreed to discuss unresolved economic issues. According to the minutes petitioner union should have requested or demanded under Art. of the meeting, Article VII of the collective bargaining agreement 252 (263) on the duty to bargain which includes the duty of concerned the promise of management to apply government mandated executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested wage increases across-the-board. RTWPB-NCR issued Wage Order No. by either party. The duty to bargain does not compel any party 01 granting an increase of P17.00 per day in the salary of workers, to agree to a proposal or make a concession followed by Wage Order No. 02 providing for a P12.00 daily increase in - The union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied in salary. The union requested the implementation of said wage orders. the Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it They demanded that the increase be on an across-the-board basis. Top finally entered into with private respondent. Form refused to accede to that demand and instead implemented a - The CBA, being the law between the parties, is impressed with scheme of increases purportedly to avoid wage distortion. It granted the public interest. Only the provisions in the CBA should be so P17.00 increase under Wage Order No. 01 to workers/employees interpreted and complied with. If it doesn’t form part of the receiving salary of P125.00 per day and below. The P12.00 increase CBA, the parties may not require its implementation (Wage Order No. 02) was granted to those receiving the salary of - In this case, the minutes of meeting wherein management P140.00 per day and below. For employees receiving salary higher than promised to implement wage increases across the board cannot P125.00 or P140.00 per day, private respondent granted an escalated be relied upon since they have not been agreed, as evidenced increase ranging from P6.99 to P14.30 and from P6.00 to P10.00, that they did not form part of the CBA.d respectively. The union filed a complaint with the NCR NLRC alleging - Management was not bargaining in bad faith since the petitioner that private respondent’s act of “reneging on its undertaking/promise union had the right to insist on the fulfillment of management’s clearly constitutes act of unfair labor practice through bargaining in bad promise by demanding its incorporation in the CBA faith.” Top Form contended that in implementing Wage Orders Nos. 01 - “The question as to what are mandatory and what are merely and 02, it had avoided “the existence of a wage distortion” that would permissive subjects of collective bargaining is of significance arise from such implementation. It asserted that there was no agreement on the right of a party to insist on his position to the point of to the effect that future wage increases mandated by the government stalemate. A party may refuse to enter into a collective should be implemented on an across-the-board basis. Agreement would bargaining contract unless it includes a desired provision as to have been incorporated and expressly stipulated in the CBA a matter which is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; but a refusal to contract unless the agreement covers a matter which is not a mandatory subject is in substance a refusal to bargain about matters which are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining; and it is no answer to the charge of refusal to bargain in good faith that the insistence on the disputed clause was not the sole cause of the failure to agree or that agreement was not reached with respect to other disputed clauses.” - In this case, the union had the right and opportunity to insist that the promise be included in the CBA, yet, it did not. It only raised this issue after the CBA was executed and after the wage orders were issued.
Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical Solidarity of Unions in The Philippines For Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-Super) vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corporation
G.R. No. 217135 MANILA SHIPMANAGEMENT MANNING, INC., AND OR HELLESPONT HAMMONIA GMBH CO. KG ANDOR AZUCENA C. DETERA, PETITIONERS, VS. RAMON T. ANINANG, RESPONDENT. Januar