Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

BANKARD, INC.

,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION- FIRST DIVISION, PAULO
BUENCONSEJO,BANKARD EMPLOYEES UNION-AWATU,

G.R. No. 171664


March 6, 2013

MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:

On June 26, 2000, respondent Bankard Employees Union-AWATU


(Union) filed before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) its
first Notice of Strike (NOS), docketed as NS-06-225-00, alleging commission
of unfair labor practices by petitioner Bankard, Inc. (Bankard), to wit: 1) job
contractualization; 2) outsourcing/contracting-out jobs; 3) manpower
rationalizing program; and 4) discrimination.

Issue:

Is job contractualization or outsourcing or contracting-out is an unfair


labor practice on the part of the management.

Law Involved:

Article 247 of the Labor Code of the Philippine

Case History:

NLRC decison that the company committed unfair labor practice.

CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC

Ruling:

it was Bankards position that job contractualization or outsourcing or


contracting-out of jobs was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative
and did not constitute unfair labor practice. It had to implement new policies
and programs, one of which was the Manpower Rationalization Program
(MRP) in December 1999, to further enhance its efficiency and be more
competitive in the credit card industry. The MRP was an invitation to the
employees to tender their voluntary resignation, with entitlement to
separation pay equivalent to at least two (2) months salary for every year of
service. Those eligible under the companys retirement plan would still
receive additional pay. Thereafter, majority of the Phone Center and the
Service Fulfilment Division availed of the MRP. Thus, Bankard contracted an
independent agency to handle its call center needs.

Opinion:

The court is correct in ruling that there is no unfair labor practice


committed by the company in the outsourcing or contracting out of jobs. The
company exercise its companys management prerogative.
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION,
vs.
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 144315 July 17, 2006

CARPIO, J.:

Facts:

Upon the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner
Philcom Employees Union (PEU or union, for brevity) and private respondent Philippine Global
Communications, Inc. (Philcom, Inc.) on June 30, 1997, the parties started negotiations for the
renewal of their CBA in July 1997. While negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed on October 21, 1997
with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) National Capital Region, a Notice of
Strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS No. 10-435-97, due to perceived unfair labor practice committed
by the company (Annex "1", Comment, p. 565, ibid.). In view of the filing of the Notice of Strike, the
company suspended negotiations on the CBA which moved the union to file on November 4, 1997
another Notice of Strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS No. 11-465-97, on the ground of bargaining
deadlock .

Issue:

Is the respondent guilty of unfair labor practice.

Law Involved:

Article 248 of the Labor Code

Case History:

Secretary of labor ruled that the company did not commit any unfair
labor practice. Denied motion for reconsideration.

CA affirmed the decision of Secretary of labor.

Ruling:

A review of the acts complained of as unfair labor practices of Philcom convinces us that
they do not fall under any of the prohibited acts defined and enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor
Code. The issues of misimplementation or non-implementation of employee benefits, non-payment
of overtime and other monetary claims, inadequate transportation allowance, water, and other
facilities, are all a matter of implementation or interpretation of the economic provisions of the CBA
between Philcom and PEU subject to the grievance procedure.

Opinion:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/135547.htm