Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
bargaining should be initiated by the union, there is a corresponding responsibility on the part of
the employer to respond in some manner to such acts under Art. 250(a), LC. Considering the
procedure outlined in the article, the Court cannot help but notice that the union was not entirely
blameless in the matter of the delay in the bargaining process. The withdrawal by the union’s Vice-
President being unauthorized and therefore ineffective, the same proposals could be considered as
subsisting but the union remained passive for three years. The records do not show that during this
three-year period, it exerted any effort to pursue collective bargaining as a means of attaining better
terms of employment. It was only after its affiliation with the Associated Labor Union (ALU) that
the same union, through the ALU Director for Operations, requested an "initial conference" for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
While the union was opening all possible avenues for the conclusion of an agreement, the
record is replete with evidence on the University’s reluctance and thinly disguised refusal to
bargain with the duly certified bargaining agent, such that the inescapable conclusion is that the
University evidently had no intention of bargaining with it. Bad faith on the part of the University
is further exemplified by the fact that an hour before the start of the May 10, 1988 agreement, it
surreptitiously filed the petition for certification election. And yet during said conference, it
committed itself to "sit down" with the Union. Obviously, the University tried to preempt the
conference which would have legally foreclosed its right to file the petition for certification
election. In so doing, the University failed to act in accordance with Art. 252, LC which defines
the meaning of the duty to bargain collectively as "the performance of a mutual obligation to meet
and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith."
The petition was dismissed.
OPINION:
I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Bad faith on the part of the university can be
clearly seen on its intention to have no bargaining agreement of any kind with the union based on
its indifference attitude towards the union. The inaction on the part of the university does not
merely show its refusal to bargain or its disagreement and rejection as to the proposal of the union
but, rather, a total disregard to have a bargaining agreement. Under the law, while collective
bargaining should be initiated by the union, there is a corresponding responsibility on the part of
the university to act upon on such matter. Also, the university clearly violated Art. 252 of the Labor
Code which defines the meaning of the duty to bargain collectively as the performance of a mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith.
On the part of the union, bad faith attaches to them as well. As the withdrawal of the
collective bargaining proposal of the union was made by its former vice president, the union did
not take any corrective measures to prevent any miscommunication nor to clear to the university
the ineffectivity of withdrawal of the proposal. As ruled by the court, the proposal was still
subsisting and yet, no action on the part of the union was made in order to put into force their
proposal. It was only after three year and its affiliation to the ALU that it pursued once again its
yearning to have a bargaining agreement. The union slept on its right to have a better terms of
employment due to its inattention.