Case Digest (G.R. No. 110854)
Facts:
Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Hon. Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 110854, February 13, 1995, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. and the private respondent is the General Maritime & Stevedores Union (GMSU); Hon. Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor appears as public respondent in her capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment. The parties had a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that expired on November 27, 1991. During the ensuing freedom period, the National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) questioned GMSU’s majority status by seeking a certification election. The certification election held on February 27, 1992 was won by GMSU, which was certified on March 19, 1992 as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for Pier 8’s rank-and-file employees.
On June 22, 1992 GMSU submitted its CBA proposals; petitioner made counter-proposals but negotiations collapsed. GMSU filed a Notice of Strike on August 24, 1992 with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), which failed to settle the dispute. On September 30, 1992 the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the deadlock and, after proceedings, issued an Order dated March 4, 1993 resolving both non-economic and economic issues. The Secretary’s Order (inter alia) declined to modify the CBA’s Article I listing the bargaining unit composition, discussed eligibility of foremen and various clerical positions, set the CBA’s effectivity initially from “22 September 1992,” and awarded specified economic benefits to the union’s proposals. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration; by Resolution dated June 8, 1993 the Secretary affirmed her findings but changed the CBA’s effectivity date to September 30, 1992 — the date she assumed jurisdiction.
Petitioner then brought this petition to the Supreme Court (Rule 45 review) challenging the Secretary’s Order on four grounds: (I) grave abuse of discretion in not excluding certain positions (four foremen, a legal secretary, a timekeeper and an assistant timekeeper) from the rank-and-file bargaining unit; (II) grave abuse in fixing the CBA’s effectivity on September 30, 1992 rather than on March 4, 1993 (the date of the Secretary’s decision); (III) grave abuse in reducing the number of days an employee must actually work to be entitled to vacation and sick leave benefits; and (IV) grave abuse in increasing without factual basis the death aid and emergency loan ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in not excluding certain positions (four foremen, a legal secretary, a timekeeper and an assistant timekeeper) from the rank‑and‑file bargaining unit?
- Did the Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in fixing the CBA’s date of effectivity on September 30, 1992 rather than on March 4, 1993 when she rendered her decision?
- Did the Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in reducing the number of days an employee must actually work to be entitled to vacation and sick leave benefits?
- Did the Secretary commit grave abuse of discretion in increasing wi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)