Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    Samahang Manggagawa Sa Top Form v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    CZARINA ANN CASTRO
    The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company for refusing to grant across-the-board wage increases to employees when implementing new minimum wage orders, despite an alleged promise by the company during collective bargaining negotiations. The court ruled against the union, finding that if such a promise was made, the union should have insisted it be written into the final collective bargaining agreement, as the duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to any proposal or concession not incorporated into the actual agreement. As the proposal was not included in the CBA, the company had no obligation to implement an across-the-board wage increase.

    Copyright:

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

    Samahang Manggagawa Sa Top Form v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    CZARINA ANN CASTRO
    129 views2 pages
    The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company for refusing to grant across-the-board wage increases to employees when implementing new minimum wage orders, despite an alleged promise by the company during collective bargaining negotiations. The court ruled against the union, finding that if such a promise was made, the union should have insisted it be written into the final collective bargaining agreement, as the duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to any proposal or concession not incorporated into the actual agreement. As the proposal was not included in the CBA, the company had no obligation to implement an across-the-board wage increase.

    Original Title

    13. Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. 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 union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company for refusing to grant across-the-board wage increases to employees when implementing new minimum wage orders, despite an alleged promise by the company during collective bargaining negotiations. The court ruled against the union, finding that if such a promise was made, the union should have insisted it be written into the final collective bargaining agreement, as the duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to any proposal or concession not incorporated into the actual agreement. As the proposal was not included in the CBA, the company had no obligation to implement an across-the-board wage increase.

    Copyright:

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

    Samahang Manggagawa Sa Top Form v. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    CZARINA ANN CASTRO
    The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company for refusing to grant across-the-board wage increases to employees when implementing new minimum wage orders, despite an alleged promise by the company during collective bargaining negotiations. The court ruled against the union, finding that if such a promise was made, the union should have insisted it be written into the final collective bargaining agreement, as the duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to any proposal or concession not incorporated into the actual agreement. As the proposal was not included in the CBA, the company had no obligation to implement an across-the-board wage increase.

    Copyright:

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

    SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURING UNITED

    WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (SMTFM-UWP) vs. NATIONAL LABOR


    RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. JOSE G. DE VERA and TOP FORM
    MANUFACTURING PHIL., INC. G.R. No. 113856, 7 September 1998

    FACTS:

     The charge arose from the employer, Top Form Manufacturing Philippine’s refusal to grant
    across-the-board increases to its employees in implementing Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02 of
    the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of the National Capital Region
    (RTWPB -NCR).

     Such refusal was aggravated by the fact that prior to the issuance of said wage orders, the
    employer allegedly promised at the collective bargaining conferences with Petitioner
    Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United Workers of the Philippines
    (SMTFM) to implement any government-mandated wage increases on an across-the-board
    basis.

     However, the provision on wages was retained on the basis of the company’s promise.

     Employer asserted that there was no agreement to the effect that future wage increases
    mandated by the government should be implemented on an across-the-board basis.
    Otherwise, that agreement would have been incorporated and expressly stipulated in the
    CBA.

    ISSUE:
    W/N an employer committed an ULP in its refusal to grant across-the-board wage
    increases in implementing the Wage Orders as it promised considering it was not expressly
    stipulated in the CBA – NO

    RULING:

     If there was indeed a promise or undertaking on the part of private respondent to obligate
    itself to grant an automatic across-the-board wage increase, petitioner union should have
    requested or demanded that such “promise or undertaking” be incorporated in the CBA.

     After all, petitioner union has the means under the law to compel private respondent to
    incorporate this specific economic proposal in the CBA.

     It could have invoked Article 252 of the Labor Code defining “duty to bargain,” thus, the
    duty includes “executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either
    party.”

     Petitioner union’s assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the same proposal may
    have a factual basis considering the allegations in the aforementioned joint affidavit of its
    members.
     However, Article 252 also states that the duty to bargain “does not compel any party to agree
    to a proposal or make any concession.”

     Thus, petitioner union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the Minutes of
    the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it finally entered into with private respondent.

     Moreover, by making such promise, private respondent may not be considered in bad faith
    or at the very least, resorting to the scheme of feigning to undertake the negotiation
    proceedings through empty promises.

     CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. It goes without
    saying, however, that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and
    complied with.

     Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not
    a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation.

    You might also like