[SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union v.
URC]/[2016] Several SWOFLU members refused to sign the 2007
[Leonen, J.]
I. FACTS
Universal Robina Corporation Sugar Division - Southern
Negros Development Corporation (URC-SONEDCO)
and Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial
Workers Union (PACIWU-TUCP), then the exclusive
bargaining representative of URC's rank-and-file
employees, entered into their 2002 CBA effective Jan 1,
2002 to Dec 31, 2006. Under the CBA, rank-and-file
employees were entitled to a wage increase of
P14.00/day for 2002 and P12.00/day for the succeeding
years until 2006.
Days after the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement
was signed, a certification election was conducted.
SWOFLU won and replaced PACIWU-TUCP as the
exclusive bargaining representative. PACIWU-TUCP
questioned the results of the certification election before
DOLE.
Med-Arbiter Romulo Sumalinog certified SWOFLU as
the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of URC
which was affirmed by the Labor Secretary, CA and SC.
URC consistently refused to negotiate a new CBA with
SWOFLU, despite several demands, allegedly due to the
2002 CBA, which it signed with PACIWU-TUCP.
Despite being the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent,
SWOFLU filed before DOLE a petition for certification
election in view of the approaching expiration of the
2002 CBA.
The 2002 CBA expired with no new collective bargaining
agreement being signed.
[2007] With no CBA in effect, URC informed the rank-
and-file employees that they would be granted certain
economic benefits (wage increase, group life insurance,
emergency leave, cash loan). They asked the
employees who wished to avail themselves of these-
benefits to sign an acknowledgment receipt/waiver (2007
waiver), which stated that "[i]n the event that a
subsequent CBA is negotiated between Management
and Union, the new CBA shall only be effective January
1, 2008." URC- claimed that the 2007 waiver was
designed to avoid and/or prevent double compensation.
waiver. Hence, they did not receive the benefits given to
other members of the bargaining unit who had done so.
[2008] Another wage increase of P16.00/day effective
January 1, 2008 were given to employees who signed
an acknowledgment receipt/waiver (2008 waiver). The
2008 waiver stated that "[s]a panahon na kung saan may
[collective bargaining agreement] na maisasara sa
pagitan ng Management at Uniyon, ito ay magiging
epektibo lamang Simula January 1, 2009."
Again, several SWOFLU members refused to sign the
2008 waiver. They did not receive the benefits from
URC.
A certification election was again conducted and
SWOFLU won again and proceeded to negotiate a new
CBA, which became effective January 1, 2009 to
December 31, 2013 (2009 Collective Bargaining
Agreement).
SWOFLU and its members who refused to sign the 2007
and 2008 waivers filed a complaint for unfair labor
practices against URC. They argued that the
requirement of a waiver before the release of the wage
increase violated their right to self-organization,
collective bargaining, and concerted action.
LA: URC did not commit unfair labor practice when it
increased the wages of the rank-and-file employees for
2007 and 2008. The requirement of a waiver aside, it
was benevolent for URC to give its employees additional
benefits outside. HOWEVER, URC was ordered to pay
the employees who refused to sign the 2007 and 2008
waivers of the benefits received by their fellow
employees for 2007 and 2008. As a new collective
bargaining agreement had already been renegotiated
and did not include the years 2007 and 2008, the
purpose of the waivers was already served.
NLRC: Affirmed LA
CA: Affirmed NLRC
SWOFLU argue that the CA failed to consider the totality
of respondent's dealings with them. They allege that
despite their several invitations, URC consistently failed
to bargain with them, and the wage increase was just
another move to avoid negotiations. They claim that the
benefits given by URC was an economic incentive
meant to encourage individual employees to give up
agreement bargaining for 2007 and 2008. They also
maintain that the wage increase for 2007 and 2008
should be considered as a continuing benefit over what
was already provided in the 2009 CBA because Article
XXI of the 2009 CBA excluded claims pending before
the courts.
URC points out that NLRC and CA found them not guilty
of unfair labor practice since the waivers did not violate
the employees' right to organize. Moreover, the
employees freely signed the waivers; even the Union did
not accuse them of coercing employees to sign these
waivers. They claim that the benefits that it offered were
higher than what the employees had previously
received; there was no diminution of benefits involved.
II. ISSUE
W/N URC committed unfair labor practice: YES
W/N SWOFLU members, who refused to sign the 2007
and 2008 waivers, are entitled to the wage increase and
other economic benefits as a continuing employee
benefit notwithstanding the 2009 CBA: YES
III. RATIONALE
URC committed unfair labor practice
CA failed to take into account that unfair labor practice
not only involves acts that violate the right to self-
organization but also covers several acts enumerated in
Article 259 of the Labor Code (especially (a) To interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization; (e) To discriminate in
regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization; (g) To
violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by
this Code)
Under this provision, an employer is guilty of unfair labor
practice when it fails in its duty to bargain in good faith.
URC repeatedly refused to meet and bargain with
SWOFLU, the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank-
and-file employees.
1. In its Position Paper before NLRC, URC cited the
different instances when the Union sent it letters
trying to set meetings to discuss a new collective
bargaining agreement and admitted that it refused
to meet with them in light of the 2002 CBA, which it
signed with PACIWU-TUCP, the previous
bargaining representative. It claimed that the 2002
CBA remained in full force and effect without
change until December 31, 2006, despite PACIWU-
TUCP losing the May 17, 2002 certification election
to SWOFLU.
URC’s argument has no merit. Their reliance on the
2002 CBA as basis for not negotiating with the
Union is unjustified. The CBA that URC invoked
had been entered into when a Petition for
Certification Election was already filed.
Associated Trade Unions v. Trajano: The said CBA
cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the
commencement of negotiations by another union with
the management. In the meantime however, so as not to
deprive the workers of the benefits of the said
agreement, it shall be recognized and given effect on a
temporary basis, subject to the results of the certification
election.
2. URC claimed that it refused to bargain because
the issue of representation was still pending
before the courts. It claimed that when the 2002
CBA expired, it had no bargaining agent to deal
with as SWOFLU had filed before DOLE a
Petition for Certification Election, which resulted
in the absence of a duly elected bargaining
representative and it was only on September
25, 2008 that SWOFLU was certified by the
DOLE as the exclusive bargaining agent of
respondent's rank-and-file employees.
This argument has no merit. DOLE said that
SWOFLU is the incumbent sole and exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees
of URC. As such, there was actually no
necessity for SWOFLU to file the subject
petition, as its representation status remains to
be effective unless challenged by other
legitimate labor organizations during the
freedom period of the CBA that was entered
into by PACIWU-TUCP and URC.
When SWOFLU held a conference, URC refused to
attend so SWOFLU wrote their demands in a letter
which included, among others, a wage increase of
P50.00/day from September 2003 to 2006. Instead of
explaining its non-attendance to the conference or
making a counter-offer, URC replied only acknowledging
the receipt and contents of the July 2003 letter but
invoking the 2002 CBA as an excuse not to answer
petitioners' demands to negotiate. URC likewise failed to
reply to the CBA proposal and letter, sent with the
agreement proposal. This is contrary to Article 261 of the
Labor Code, which requires the other party to reply
within 10 days from receipt of the written demand.
3. URC's reliance on the 2002 CBA is contrary to
jurisprudence. In Associated Labor Unions
case, the winning union had the option to either
continue the existing collective bargaining
agreement or negotiate a new one. As
SWOFLU asked for a P50.00 wage increase,
as opposed to the P12.00 wage increase they
had been receiving under the 2002 CBA,
SWOFLU were justified in demanding a
renegotiation. URC was remiss in its duty when
it repeatedly refused negotiations
Even if we consider respondent's refusal to bargain as
merely a mistake made in good faith, its subsequent acts
show an attempt to restrict petitioners' negotiating
power.
- When URC and PACIWU-TUCP entered into the
2002 CBA, they had been aware that a certification
election was going to be conducted in a few days.
In pushing through with negotiations instead of
waiting for the outcome of the election, they risked
needing to renegotiate with a new union if
PACIWU-TUCP loses. It cannot, thus, invoke the
hastily concluded 2002 CBA as an excuse not to
bargain with SWOFLU.
- URC’s initial basis for refusal to bargain had
expired (2002 CBA), and since no TRO was
issued, nothing was legally preventing URC from
negotiating a new CBA with SWOFLU. That it
chose to refuse negotiations and instead entered
into an agreement with its employees to essentially
waive negotiations for 2007 and 2008 betrays its
intention of limiting SWOFLU's bargaining power
- The wording of the waivers shows a clear attempt
to limit SWOFLU’s bargaining power by making
them waive the negotiations for 2007 and 2008. In
stipulating that the collective bargaining agreement
that would be entered into would only be effective
the year following the 2008 waiver, URC limited
when the CBA could be deemed effective. URC
asked SWOFLU to forego any benefits they might
have received under a CBA in exchange for the
company-granted benefits.
- When the 2007 waiver was circulated, URC already
had a copy of SWOFLU’s agreement proposal
asking for a P50.00 wage increase.
- The last bar preventing URC from recognizing
SWOFLU as the bargaining agent has been
resolved by the time it issued the waivers since the
Petition for Certiorari relative to the 2002
certification election was denied with finality by SC
so there was no reason to doubt that SONEDCO
Workers Free Labor Union was the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative.
The employees who did not sign the 2007 and 2008
waivers are entitled to the benefits
After SWOFLU was again declared as the exclusive
bargaining representative in the 2008 certification
election, the 2009 CBA was created to cover 2009 to
2013. Since the 2009 CBA did not include the years
2007 and 2008, the alleged purpose of the waivers,
which was to prevent double compensation, was already
served. It would be unfair for the employees to still not
receive the benefits for 2007 and 2008 simply because
they refused to sign a waiver that was already moot.
However, there is no need for the continuation of the
wage increase for 2007 and 2008 since the 2009 CBA
contains wage increase provisions for 2009 to 2013. As
explained in Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form
Manufacturing v. NLRC, if a proposal is not printed in the
collective bargaining agreement, it cannot be demanded.
If SWOFLU wanted the wage increase for 2007 and
2008 to be carried on, the proper recourse would have
been to demand that this be included in the 2009 CBA.
IV. DISPOSITIVE
GRANTED