Case Digest (G.R. No. 190515)
Facts:
Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 190515, November 15, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers and respondent Cirtek Electronics, Inc. had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005. During renegotiation of economic provisions before the CBA's third year, the parties failed to agree on wage increases; petitioner declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB-RO IV on April 26, 2004, while respondent filed a Notice of Lockout on June 16, 2004.
While conciliation continued, respondent placed seven union officers—including the union President, Vice President, Secretary and Chairman of the Board—on preventive suspension for allegedly leading an overtime boycott; those officers were later dismissed. Petitioner filed another Notice of Strike which, after conciliation meetings, was converted to voluntary arbitration; the dismissals were held legal and petitioner appealed those findings. Petitioner nevertheless initiated a strike on June 20, 2005; by Order dated June 23, 2005 the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and issued a Return to Work Order which the parties complied with.
After the Secretary assumed jurisdiction but before a final ruling, respondent formed a Labor Management Council and with remaining union officers executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) providing wage increases of P6.00/day (effective January 1, 2004) and P9.00/day (effective January 1, 2005). Petitioner submitted the MOA to the Secretary, alleging the remaining officers signed under respondent’s assurance that respondent would comply should the Secretary award higher increases. On March 16, 2006 the Secretary of Labor resolved the CBA deadlock by awarding higher increases—P6.00 to P10.00/day (effective January 1, 2004) and P9.00 to P15.00/day (effective January 1, 2005)—and adopting other MOA benefits.
Respondent sought reconsideration, citing a union vice-president's subsequent declaration that members waived rights under the Secretary’s Decision; the Secretary denied reconsideration by Resolution dated August 12, 2008. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. By Decision dated September 24, 2009 the Court of Appeals set aside the Secretary’s Decision, finding grave abuse of d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, may the Secretary of Labor award wage increases higher than those provided in a Memorandum of Agreement executed by remaining union officers?
- Was the MOA alleged to have been entered into by the remaining officers under a condition that respondent would honor any higher award by the Secretary effective to preclude the Secretary ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)