Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU vs Canizares

FACTS:

PSSLU had an existing CBA with Sanyo. The same CBA contained a union
security clause which provides that:

All members of the union covered by this agreement must retain their
membership in good standing x-x-x. The union shall have the right to
demand from the company the dismissal of the members of the union by
reason of their voluntary resignation or by reasons of their having formed,
joined, affiliated and/or supported another labor organization x-x-x

Subsequently, PSSLU, through its national president, informed the


management of Sanyo that the membership of employees Yap et al. were
cancelled for anti-union activities, economic sabotage, intimidation, disloyalty
and for joining another union. It appears that many of these employees were
not members of PSSLU but of another union, KAMAO. Then, some officers of
KAMAO, which include Yap et al. executed a pledged of cooperation with PSSLU
promising cooperation with the latter union and accepting and honoring the CBA
between Sanyo.

Later, PSSLU through its national and local presidents, wrote another letter to
Sanyo recommending the dismissal of Yap et al. because they were engaged and
were still engaging in anti-union activities and they threatened and were still
threatening with bodily harm and even death the officers of the union.

Sanyo sent a memorandum to the same workers advising them that they are
under preventive suspension and should they fail to appeal the decision of the
union for dismissal on or before March 23, 1991, said employees shall be
considered dismissed from the company. Sanyo received no information on
whether or not said employees appealed to PSSLU. Hence, it considered them
dismissed as of March 23, 1991.

Subsequently, the dismissed employees filed a complaint with the NLRC for
illegal dismissal. PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the
Labor Arbiter was without jurisdiction over the case, relying on Article 217 (c) of
P.D. 442, as amended by Section 9 of RA 6715 which provides that cases arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining
agreements shall be disposed of by the labor arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration.

The Labor Arbiter held that termination dispute falling under their Jurisdiction
and the jurisdiction of the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration shall
cover other controversies. However, the resolution of the instant issue shall be
suspended until both parties have fully presented their respective positions.
Later, PSSLU filed another motion to resolve motion to dismiss complaint
with a prayer that the Labor Arbiter resolve the issue of jurisdiction. The Labor
Arbiter held that it was assuming jurisdiction over the complaint of private
respondents.
PSSLU filed a petition alleging grave abuse of jurisdiction on the part of the
Labor Arbiter because it had no jurisdiction over the dispute subject of said
complaint.
ISSUE: Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the dispute.
HELD:
Yes. It is clear under Article 217 of the Labor Code that termination cases
fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. In the instant case, the Labor
Arbiter and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in the CBA has the
jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaints of the private respondents. While
it appears that the dismissal of the private respondents was made upon the
recommendation of PSSLU, these facts do not come within the phrase
"grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of CBA and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.
The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. Since there has already
been an actual termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter.

Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs Asia


Brewery Inc.
FACTS:
Asia Brewery entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement, effective for
five years from August 1, 1997 to July 31, 2002, with BLMA-INDEPENDENT, the
exclusive bargaining representative of Asia Brewerys rank-and-file employees.
Subsequently, Asia Brewery and BLMA-INDEPENDENT signed a renegotiated
CBA effective from August 1, 2000 to 31 July 2003. Then, a dispute arose when
Asia Brewerys management stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees
(sampling inspectors, checkers and secretaries/clerks) believing that they are not
any more considered as rank and file employees by virtue of the renegotiated CBA.
BLMA-INDEPENDENT claimed that Asia Brewerys actions restrained the
employees right to self-organization and brought the matter to the grievance
machinery.
BLMA-INDEPENDENT lodged a complaint before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The parties eventually agreed to submit
the case for arbitration to resolve the issue.
The Voluntary Arbitrator sustained the BLMA-INDEPENDENT after finding that
the records submitted by Asia Brewerys showed that the positions of the subject

employees qualify under the rank-and-file category because their functions are
merely routinely and clerical.
On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrator, ruling that
the 81 employees are excluded from the bargaining unit and cannot validly
become members of respondent and/or if already members, that their membership
is violative of the CBA.
BLMA-INDEPENDENT filed a motion for reconsideration. In the meantime, a
certification election was held on August 10, 2002 wherein petitioner Tunay na
Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia won. The motion was denied by the CA.
Hence, BLMA-INDEPENDENT filed a petition claiming that CA erred in ruling
that the 81 employees are excluded from and are not eligible for inclusion in the
bargaining unit.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in ruling that the 81 employees are excluded from
the bargaining unit.
HELD:
YES. The checkers and secretaries/clerks of Asia Brewery are considered
rank-and-file employees who are eligible to join the Union of the rank-and-file
employees.
Jurisprudence has extended the prohibition to join, form and assist any labor
organization to confidential employees. Confidential employees are defined as
those who: (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who
formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor
relations.
In the present case, the CBA expressly excluded Confidential and Executive
Secretaries from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. However, upon examination of
the job descriptions of these secretaries/clerks reveals that their assigned
duties involve routine activities of recording and monitoring, and other paper
works. Asia Brewery failed to indicate that the secretaries/clerks have access to
confidential data relating to management. With regard to the checkers, they
cannot be considered as confidential employees. The job descriptions of these
checkers plainly showed that they perform routine and mechanical tasks
preparatory to the delivery of the finished products.
However, with respect to the Sampling Inspectors, there seems no dispute
that they form part of the Quality Control Staff who are considered confidential
employees being entrusted with the handling and custody of company properties
and sensitive information.

Silva et al. vs NLRC and Philtread


FACTS:
Petitioners Silva et al., then rank-and-file employees and members of
Philtread Workers Union, availed of the retrenchment program instituted by
Philtread with the understanding that they would have priority in re-employment in
the event that the company recovers from its financial crisis in accordance of the
CBA.
Subsequently, Philtread recovered from its financial reverses and hired new
personnel. Upon discovery of this development, petitioners filed their respective
applications for employment with Philtread. However, demands for re-employment
made by petitioners were ignored.

Then, petitioners lodged a complaint with the NCR Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC for unfair labor practice. Philtread moved for the dismissal averring that
NLRC lacked jurisdiction, there being no employer-employee relationship between
it and petitioners. Philtread also claimed that petitioners had no locus standi, not
being privy to the CBA executed between the union and Philtread.
Petitioners, stressed that the complaint was one for unfair labor practice
precipitated by the unjust refusal of Philtread to re-employ them, as mandated by
the provisions of Section 4 of the 1986 and 1983 CBAs. The Labor Arbiter rendered
a decision dismissing the complaint but directing Philtread to give petitioners
priority in hiring.
Petitioners appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. The
NLRC issued a resolution reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter directing
Philtread to re-employ petitioners and other employees similarly situated,
regardless of age qualifications and other pre-employment conditions.
The counsel of Philtread file a motion for reconsideration. The NLRC acted on
the motion for reconsideration dismissing the complaint of petitioners. It ruled that
the complaint should have been filed with the voluntary arbitrator, pursuant to
Article 261 of the Labor Code, since the primary issue was the implementation and
interpretation of the CBA.
Petitioners immediately moved for reconsideration. Petitioners stressed that
the resolution had already become final and executory since Philtreads counsel did
not file any motion for reconsideration within the 10-dayreglementary period.
The NLRC, however, affirmed its earlier resolution, ruling that even before
the amendatory law took effect, matters involving bargaining agreements were
already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether the ruling of the NLRC is correct.
HELD:
No. The seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration within the 10-day
reglementary period following the receipt by a party of any order is a mandatory
requirement to forestall the finality of such order.
In the case at bar, Philtreads counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of 31
days after receipt of said resolution. It was thus incumbent upon the NLRC to have
dismissed outright Philtreads late motion for reconsideration. It is a settled
doctrine that the NLRC, as an administrative and quasi-judicial body, is not bound
by the rigid application of technical rules of procedure in the conduct of its
proceedings. However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it ON
TIME are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and
mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with.

With respect to jurisdiction, the Labor Arbiter and not the Grievance
Machinery provided for in the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
complaint. Since the contending parties in the instant case are not the union and
Philtread, it is not the voluntary arbitrator who can take cognizance of the
complaint but the Labor Arbiter.