Case Digest (G.R. No. 113003) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant (G.R. No. 198783, April 15, 2013), the Royal Plant Workers Union (ROPWU) assails the Court of Appeals’ May 24, 2011 decision nullifying a Voluntary Arbitration Panel award. The respondent, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI), operates a Cebu bottling plant where 32–34 male bottling operators—members of ROPWU—work in two rotating shifts. Chairs were provided to Line 2 operators in 1974 and to Line 1 in 1988. Pursuant to a 2008 national “Operate, Maintain, Clean” directive aimed at enhancing mobility and preventing on-the-job sleeping accidents, CCBPI removed the chairs. After exhausting the CBA grievance procedure and failing conciliation before the NCMB, ROPWU invoked voluntary arbitration on July 16, 2009. The panel issued a June 11, 2010 decision declaring the removal invalid and ordering restoration of the chairs. CCBPI then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Ap Case Digest (G.R. No. 113003) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Factual Background
- Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) operates a Cebu bottling plant with two production lines manned by 32–34 male bottling operators, all members of the Royal Plant Workers Union (ROPWU).
- Operators had been provided chairs since 1974 (Line 2) and 1988 (Line 1). In September 2008, CCBPI issued a national directive under its “I Operate, I Maintain, I Clean” program removing the chairs to promote constant movement, prevent sleeping on duty, enhance safety, and improve line efficiency; rotation breaks were shortened from 2½ hours to 1½ hours of work followed by a 30-minute rest.
- Procedural History
- The Union exhausted grievance procedures under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), then elevated the dispute to voluntary arbitration by Submission Agreement dated October 1, 2009.
- The Voluntary Arbitration Panel (June 11, 2010) ruled the removal invalid and ordered restoration of chairs. CCBPI filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 24, 2011 nullified the arbitration award and sustained the removal. ROPWU appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court the proper remedy to challenge an award of a voluntary arbitration panel under the Labor Code?
- Was the removal of the bottling operators’ chairs from the production lines a valid exercise of management prerogative?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)