Case Digest (G.R. No. 170054)
Facts:
This case involves Goya, Inc., petitioner, a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing, importing, and wholesaling food products, and the Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW, respondent. In January 2004, Goya, Inc. hired contractual employees through PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to perform temporary and occasional services at its factory in Parang, Marikina City. The Union filed a grievance dispute, alleging that hiring contractual workers through PESO violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which categorizes employees only as probationary, regular, or casual, and does not accommodate hiring through third-party entities like PESO. The Union claimed this amounted to an unfair labor practice (ULP).
The grievance was unresolved and submitted for voluntary arbitration before Arbitrator Bienvenido E. Laguesma. The sole issue was whether the Company committed an unfair labor practice in engaging PESO under the CBA, law, and jurisprudence. The Union claimed
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 170054)
Facts:
- Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Goya, Inc. (the Company), a domestic corporation engaged in manufacture, importation, and wholesale of food products.
- Respondent: Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW (the Union), the labor union representing the Company’s regular rank-and-file employees.
- Background and Dispute
- In January 2004, the Company hired contractual employees through PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to perform temporary and occasional services at its factory in Parang, Marikina City.
- The Union objected, arguing that contractual workers from PESO did not belong to any of the three categories of employees defined under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Company, thereby violating the CBA.
- The Union requested a grievance conference, which failed to settle the dispute. The grievance was referred to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration.
- Issue Submitted for Arbitration
- Agreement by both parties to submit for resolution the sole issue of whether the Company was guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP) in engaging PESO as a third party service provider under the CBA, laws, and jurisprudence.
- CBA Provisions Cited
- Three categories of employees under Section 4, Article I of the CBA:
- Probationary Employees – hired to occupy regular rank-and-file positions and subject to probationary period.
- Regular Employees – employees who completed probationary period and granted regular status.
- Casual Employees – hired to perform occasional or seasonal work related or unrelated to regular operations or for specific projects of limited duration.
- Section 1, Article III on Union Security: all regular employees are union members as a condition of employment.
- Positions of the Parties
- The Union argued:
- Hiring PESO contractual employees violated the CBA as these workers did not fall within any recognized category.
- This practice undermined Union rights and security, limiting access to probationary and casual employee pools.
- Such contracting could be used as a tool to avoid filling vacant regular positions and potentially to import strikebreakers.
- The Company contended:
- Contracting out through third party services was allowed per DOLE Order No. 18-02 and management prerogative.
- No employee was terminated, nor were working hours reduced, nor was the bargaining unit affected.
- The CBA merely defined employee categories and did not limit its right to contract out.
- Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision (October 26, 2004)
- Dismissed the Union’s charge of unfair labor practice for lack of factual basis and speculative claims.
- Held that the Company violated the CBA by engaging PESO contractual workers instead of hiring casual employees directly, contrary to the agreed employee categories.
- However, violation was not gross and hence not an unfair labor practice.
- Directed the Company to observe and comply with its commitment regarding the hiring of casual employees.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- The Company sought to set aside the directive to observe the CBA commitment, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his power since the issue did not cover this matter.
- CA sustained the arbitrator’s ruling, holding the matter was interrelated to the sole issue submitted and within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
- CA ruled hiring PESO workers violated the CBA because they did not fall within the enumerated employee categories.
- Management prerogative to outsource is limited by the CBA and must be motivated by good faith without evading the law or contract provisions.
- Subsequent Developments
- The Company’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
- The Company filed petition for review with the Supreme Court.
- The Company subsequently informed the Court of its cessation of business operations and liquidation in 2006, with final liquidation completed by 2009.
Issues:
- Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) exceeded his jurisdiction and authority by ruling that the engagement of PESO contractual workers violated the CBA, given that the sole issue submitted for arbitration was whether the Company was guilty of unfair labor practice in engaging PESO.
- Whether the engagement of PESO contractual employees violated the CBA and if such violation constituted unfair labor practice.
- Whether the Company’s management prerogative justified the hiring of contractual workers from PESO despite the CBA provisions on employee categories.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)