UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES VS. NLRC
G.R. No. 91025
December 19, 1990
DOCTRINE:
Art. 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. - xxx Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof.
FACTS:
Dealing with 4 units of Nestle Philippines:
○ Makati
○ Alabang/Cabuyao
○ Cagayan de Oro
○ Cebu/Davao
June 30, 1987: past CBA for the four units were expiring. Nestle was willing to negotiate with the Makati and Alabang/Cabuyao units, but not with the Cagayan de Oro and Cebu/Davao units because they had representation issues. On June, July 1987: Union Of Filipro Employees was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of Cagayan de Oro and Cebu/Davao units. The negotiating panel was dissolved because they were terminated in September. With instructions/advise from the BLR Director, Nestle did not deal with the factions of UFE (not the terminated negotiating panel members) purporting to have authority to bargain UFE filed a Notice of Strike at the Department of Labor raising the issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor practice. The action assailing the validity of the CBA entered into by the four units. The Secretary of Labor (assumed): deal only with the bargaining deadlock with Makati and Alabang/Cabuyao units OnJune 5, 1989: Second Division of the NLRC promulgated a resolution granting wage increase and other benefits to Nestlé's employees, and HELD on non-economic issues
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent NLRC seriously erred in holding that the CBA to be signed by the parties shall cover solely the bargaining unit consisting of all regular rank-and-file employees of the respondent company at Makati, Alabang and Cabuyao
HELD:
NO. Art. 253-A of the Labor Code provides: Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof.
The assailed resolution which incorporated the CBA to be signed by the parties was promulgated June 5, 1989, and hence, outside the 6 month period from June 30, 1987, the expiry date of the past CBA. But since no agreement to that effect was made, public respondent did not abuse its discretion in giving the said CBA a prospective effect.
Articles 253 and 253-A mandate 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. Consequently, there being no new agreement reached, the automatic renewal clause provided for by the law which is deemed incorporated in all CBAs, provides the reason why the new CBA can only be given a prospective effect.
