Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5


Union president Juanito Facundo negotiated with the company for the signing of a CBA.
Deadlock ensued because the union rejected the companys proposal of a 9.9% wage
increase. Union staged a strike until the SOLE assumed jurisdiction.
While the resolution of the dispute was pending, Avelina Remigio and 27 other union
members accepted the companys proposal without any authority from the union
leaders. The unions grievance committee reprimanded these members.
SOLE issued an arbitral award ordering the union and the company to execute a CBA.
A CBA was signed. Barely six months later, Remigio solicited signatures from 147 out
of 257 local union members in support of a resolution re:
o Disaffiliation from FFW and renaming to Reformed Employees Union of Bayer
Phils. [NEW UNION]
o Adoption of a new constitution and by-laws, abolition of all existing officer
positions, and the election of a new set of interim officers
o Authorization of the new union to administer the CBA between the old union and
the company
Both factions sought recognition from the Company and demanded remittance of
the union dues collected from its rank-and-file members. Facundo accused the
company of interfering with purely union matters.
Bayer responded by deciding not to deal with either of the two groups, and by
placing the union dues collected in a trust account until the conflict between the two
groups is resolved.
The old union filed ULP CASE #1 against the company for non-remittance of union
The old union asked for a grievance conference. Facundo did not attend the meeting, but
sent two old union officers to inform the others that a preventive mediation conference
between the two groups has been scheduled on the following day. The groups failed to
settle their issues. Another grievance meeting was asked but this time, this remained
The company decided to turn over the collected union dues to the treasurer of the
new union.
The old union filed a complaint against Remigios group before the DOLE
Industrial Relations Division, praying for their expulsion from the old union for acts
that threaten the unions life. [COMPLAINT]
LA dismissed ULP CASE #1 for lack of jurisdiction.
o The root cause for Bayers failure to remit the collected union dues can be
traced to the intra-union conflict between EUBP and Remigios group. The
charges imputed against the company should have been submitted instead to
voluntary arbitration.
The old union filed ULP CASE #2 against the company and some of its officers
(president and HRD manager), as well as against Remigio and the new union
treasurerorganizing a company union, gross violation of CBA, violation of duty to

o The company refused to remit the collected union dues to the old union despite
several demands.
o Notwithstanding the requests sent for a renegotiation of the last two years of the
1997-2001 CBA, the company opted to negotiate instead with Remigios group.
The new union and the company agreed to sign a new CBA.
The old union filed an URGENT MOTION for a restraining order/injunction.
o The old union asserted their authority as the SEBA of the rank-and-files.
o They asked that a temporary restraining order be issued against Remigios group
and the company to prevent the employees from ratifying the new CBA.
o The amended complaint included the issue of gross violation of the CBA for
violation of the contract bar rulecompany decided to negotiate and sign a
new CBA with Remigios group.
Meanwhile, the COMPLAINT (re: expulsion of Remigios group) was dismissed for
failure to exhaust reliefs within the union. The conduct of a referendum was ordered to
determine which of the groups should be recognized as officers.
However, upon appeal, the old union woncompany ordered to respect old union
officers authority in the administration of the prevailing CBA. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, the company already signed a new CBA with the new union.
The CBA was ratified by majority of the bargaining unit.
ULP CASE #2 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since the case involves intraunion disputes.
o When the issue calls for the determination of which between the two groups
within a union is entitled to the union dues, the same cannot be taken cognizance
of by the NLRC [Cebu Seamens Association v. Ferrer-Calleja].
The URGENT MOTION was dismissed for lack of jurisdictionan intra-union
dispute is involved.
On appeal of ULP CASE #2 before the NLRC and CA, the old union still lost.
o Since the old union admitted that the company committed gross violations of the
CBA, then the BLR is divested of jurisdiction and the issue should have been
referred to the Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitrator and not to the
Labor Arbiter as what the old union did.
o After the five-year lifespan of the CBA between the company and the old union,
the employees have all the right to change their bargaining unit who will represent
them. If there exists two opposing unions in the same company, the remedy is not
to declare that such act is considered ULP but rather they should conduct a
certification election within the freedom period.


Acts of abetting or assisting in the creation of another union [LC 248 (d)
Act of negotiating with such union constitutes a violation of the companys duty to
bargain collectively
Companys unjustified refusal to process old unions grievances and to recognize it as the


ULP requisites not satisfiedviolation of the CBA should be gross, and that it should
involve violation in the economic provisions of the
The issues should have been ventilated and threshed out before the voluntary arbitrators
Issue already moot and academic, following the lapse of the 1997-2001 CBA and their
renegotiation with the old union for the 2006-2007 CBAobvious recognition that the
old union is now the certified SEBA
They are not real parties in interest against the ULP complaint against Bayer
There are no specific or material acts imputed against them in the complaint
WON there is ULP when the company negotiated with Remigios group despite the CBA with
the old union. YES. ULP CASE #2 should not have been dismissed as against the company
and its officers. (Correctly dismissed as against Remigio and the new union treasurer)
An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including
grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the unions constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No.
40-03 (2003) enumerate the following circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes.
SECTION 1. Coverage. - Inter/intra-union disputes shall include:
a) cancellation of registration of a labor organization filed by its members or
by another labor organization;
b) conduct of election of union and workers association officers/nullification
of election of union and workers association officers;
c) audit/accounts examination of union or workers association funds;
d) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
e) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
f) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for union membership;
g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union and workers
association officers and members;
h) validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition;
i) opposition to application for union and CBA registration;
j) violations of or disagreements over any provision in a union or workers
association CBL;
k) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations and
l) violations of the rights and conditions of union or workers association
m) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except
interpretation of CBA;

n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-organization,

union membership and collective bargaining
1. between and among legitimate labor organizations;
2. between and among members of a union or workers association.
SECTION 2. Coverage. Other related labor relations disputes shall include any
conflict between a labor union and the employer or any individual, entity or group
that is not a labor organization or workers association. This includes: (1)
cancellation of registration of unions and workers associations; and (2) a petition
for interpleader.
The issues raised by the Union do not fall under any of the circumstances constituting an
intra-union dispute. They do not seek a determination of whether it is the Facundo group
or the Remigio group which is the true set of union officers. The issue raised pertained only
to the validity of the acts of management in light of the fact that it still has an existing CBA
with EUBP.
The issue, as against them, essentially involves an intra-union dispute. To rule on the validity or
illegality of their acts, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC will necessarily touch on the issues
respecting the propriety of their disaffiliation and the legality of the establishment of the new
union issues that are outside the scope of their jurisdiction.
A CBA is entered into in order to foster stability and mutual cooperation between labor and
capital. An employer should not be allowed to rescind unilaterally its CBA with the SEBA it
previously contracted with, and decide to bargain with a different group if there is no legitimate
reason for doing so and without following the procedure. A CBA entered into becomes the law
between the parties (also emphasized in the Certificate of Registration issued by the DOLE).
This is to afford protection to labor and to promote industrial peace. If the employer grossly
violates its CBA, it may be held administratively and criminally liable for ULP.
ART. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a CBA. Where there is
a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party
shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either
party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty
(60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both 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 and/or until a new agreement is
reached by the parties.
Silva v. NLRC (cf. LC 248 (1) and LC 261)
o For a ULP case to be cognizable by the LA, and for the NLRC to exercise
appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the complaint must show prima

facie the concurrence of two things: gross violation of the CBA, and the violation
pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA
Silva should not be construed to apply to violations of the CBA, which can be
considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard of the very existence of
the CBA itself.
o When an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the
existence of a valid CBA with the SEBA, the former abandons its recognition
of the latter and terminates the CBA.


They knew that Facundos group represented the duly-elected officers of the old union.
They were cognizant of the fact that even the SOLE recognized the legitimacy of the old
unions mandate by rendering an arbitral award ordering the signing of the 1997-2001
CBA with the old union.
They were aware of the pendency of the intra-union dispute case, yet they still proceeded
to turn over the collected union dues to the new union and to effusively deal with
A legitimate labor organization cannot be construed to have abandoned its pending claim
against the employer by returning to the negotiating table, except when the pending claim
has been expressly waived or compromised in its subsequent negotiations with the
o ELSE: Tantamount to subjecting industrial peace to the precondition that previous
claims that labor may have against capital must first be waived or abandoned
before negotiations may resume. (Against public policy!)
It did not obliterate the fact that the management withdrew its recognition of the old
union and supported the new union during the tumultuous implementation of the 19972001 CBA.
Petition for review on certiorari PARTLY GRANTED
CA decision and resolution MODIFIED
Company, president, and HRD manager guilty of ULP and are ordered:
o To remit to old union the amount representing the collected union dues previously
turned over to the new union
o To pay old union nominal damages and attorneys fees
Complaint against Remigio and new union treasurer dismissed