General Milling Corporation vs General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union

 General Milling Corporation vs General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union

GR No. 183122 and 183889

June 15, 2011

DOCTRINE: Article 253 of the Labor Code mandates the 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 prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

FACTS:

Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA with General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April 28, 1989, 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 days. As early as October 1991, however, GMC had received collective and individual letters from workers who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of religious affiliation and personal differences. Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send any counter-proposal. 

The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the NLRC Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right to self-organization; and (3) discrimination.  The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election be held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers. The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision. In its decision dated January 30, 1998, the NLRC pointed out that upon the effectivity of RA No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case of GMC-Independent Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993. All other provisions of the CBA are to be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. The NLRC held that respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining agent with the right to renegotiate the economic provisions of the CBA. Consequently, it was unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into negotiation with the union.  It ordered the imposition upon the respondent company of the complainant union’s draft CBA proposal for the remaining two years duration of the original CBA which is from December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1993 

On GMC’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its decision of January 30, 1998, through a resolution dated October 6, 1998. It found GMC’s doubts as to the status of the union justified. The union filed the petition for certiorari before the CA. It reversed and set aside the NLRC's October 6, 1998 resolution and reinstated the aforesaid January 30, 1998 decision.

ISSUE/S: 

Whether or not the imposed CBA has full force and effect considering that it was not agreed upon by the Union and GMC. 

HELD:

Yes. 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.  Hence, it is indisputable that when the union requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five years from the date of effectivity of the CBA on December 1, 1988.  

The union’s 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 under Article 248 of the Labor Code. Considering that no new CBA had been, in the meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, we find, pursuant to Article 253 of the Labor Code, the provisions of the imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until a new CBA has been entered into by the parties.  

Article 253 of the Labor Code mandates the 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 prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. The law does not provide for any exception nor qualification on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect. Likewise, the law does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed CBA like the one in the present case. Hence, considering that no new CBA had been, in the meantime, agreed upon by respondent GMC and the Union, the provisions of the imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until a new CBA is entered into by the parties.