Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Kiok Loy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Jose Lorenzo Villafuerte Anacay
    The National Labor Relations Commission ruled that Sweden Ice Cream was guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union. After the union was certified as the sole bargaining agent for employees and submitted a proposed collective bargaining agreement, Sweden Ice Cream ignored requests to negotiate and provide counterproposals. This constituted a violation of the law requiring employers to negotiate in good faith. The court affirmed the NLRC's ruling, noting Sweden Ice Cream showed no willingness to discuss or justify its opposition to the union's demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kiok Loy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Jose Lorenzo Villafuerte Anacay
    93 views2 pages
    The National Labor Relations Commission ruled that Sweden Ice Cream was guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union. After the union was certified as the sole bargaining agent for employees and submitted a proposed collective bargaining agreement, Sweden Ice Cream ignored requests to negotiate and provide counterproposals. This constituted a violation of the law requiring employers to negotiate in good faith. The court affirmed the NLRC's ruling, noting Sweden Ice Cream showed no willingness to discuss or justify its opposition to the union's demands.

    Original Description:

    labor

    Original Title

    Kiok Loy vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The National Labor Relations Commission ruled that Sweden Ice Cream was guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union. After the union was certified as the sole bargaining agent for employees and submitted a proposed collective bargaining agreement, Sweden Ice Cream ignored requests to negotiate and provide counterproposals. This constituted a violation of the law requiring employers to negotiate in good faith. The court affirmed the NLRC's ruling, noting Sweden Ice Cream showed no willingness to discuss or justify its opposition to the union's demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    Kiok Loy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Jose Lorenzo Villafuerte Anacay
    The National Labor Relations Commission ruled that Sweden Ice Cream was guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the union. After the union was certified as the sole bargaining agent for employees and submitted a proposed collective bargaining agreement, Sweden Ice Cream ignored requests to negotiate and provide counterproposals. This constituted a violation of the law requiring employers to negotiate in good faith. The court affirmed the NLRC's ruling, noting Sweden Ice Cream showed no willingness to discuss or justify its opposition to the union's demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jose Lorenzo V.

    Anacay
    2013-78053
    September 3, 2015

    NLRC RULING: Sweden Ice Cream is hereby declared guilty of unjustified refusal
    to bargain, in violation of Section (g) Article 248 (now Article 249), of P.D. 442.
    Further, the draft proposal for a collective bargaining agreement is hereby
    declared to be the collective agreement which should govern the relationship
    between the parties herein.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Company committed unfair labor practice by not
    refusing to bargain with the Union

    G.R. No. L-54334 January 22, 1986


    KIOK LOY, doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM
    PLANT, petitioner,
    vs.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and PAMBANSANG
    KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN), respondents.

    FACTS: In a certification election held on October 3, 1978, the Pambansang


    Kilusang Paggawa (Union for short), a legitimate late labor federation, won and
    was subsequently certified in a resolution dated November 29, 1978 by the
    Bureau of Labor Relations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rankand-file employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant (Company for short).
    The Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed collective
    bargaining agreement. Eliciting no response to the aforesaid request, the Union
    again wrote the Company reiterating its request for collective bargaining
    negotiations and for the Company to furnish them with its counter proposals. Both
    requests were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company.
    Left with no other alternative in its attempt to bring the Company to the bargaining
    table, the Union, on February 14, 1979, filed a "Notice of Strike", with the Bureau
    of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unresolved economic issues in collective
    bargaining.
    Conciliation proceedings then followed during the thirty-day statutory cooling-off
    period. But all attempts towards an amicable settlement failed, prompting the
    Bureau of Labor Relations to certify the case to the National Labor Relations
    Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Presidential Decree
    No. 823.
    The Union submitted its position paper. The Company did not, and instead
    requested for a resetting which was granted.

    RULING: YES
    Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective
    agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code,
    designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to
    create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual
    responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal
    obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an
    unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene
    promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an
    agreement with respect to wages, hours of work, and all other terms and
    conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance
    or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract
    incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.
    The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the following
    jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely, (1) possession of the status of
    majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any
    of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof
    of majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a)
    of the New Labor Code . ... all of which preconditions are undisputedly
    present in the instant case.
    We are in total conformity with respondent NLRC's pronouncement that petitioner
    Company is GUILTY of unfair labor practice. A Company's refusal to make
    counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may
    indicate bad faith and this is specially true where the Union's request for a counter
    proposal is left unanswered. Even during the period of compulsory arbitration
    before the NLRC, petitioner Company's approach and attitude-stalling the
    negotiation by a series of postponements, non-appearance at the hearing
    conducted, and undue delay in submitting its financial statements, lead to no other
    conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the
    Union. Petitioner has not at any instance, evinced good faith or willingness to
    discuss freely and fully the claims and demands set forth by the Union much less
    justify its opposition thereto.

    You might also like