Case Digest (G.R. No. 99266)
Facts:
The case involves San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, along with the San Miguel Corporation Employees Union (SMCEU) - PTGWO, as respondents. In July 1990, SMC, citing financial losses and the need to streamline operations, shut down some plants and declared 55 positions redundant across different divisions: seventeen in the Business Logistics Division (BLD), seventeen in the Ayala Operations Center (AOC), and eighteen in the Magnolia-Manila Buying Station (Magnolia-MBS). The SMCEU promptly filed several grievance cases on behalf of the retrenched employees, requesting redeployment to other company divisions.
Pursuant to the 1990 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the parties initiated grievance procedures involving a three-step process including oral and written submissions, meetings with various levels of management, and possible appeal to the Conciliation Board composed of representatives from
Case Digest (G.R. No. 99266)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of Case
- Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division dismissing its complaint.
- The complaint sought to dismiss a strike notice filed by the private respondent union, San Miguel Corporation Employees Union (SMCEU) – PTGWO, and to compel compliance with the grievance machinery, arbitration, and no-strike clause under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- Events Leading to the Dispute
- In July 1990, SMC shut down some plants because of financial losses and declared 55 positions redundant:
- 17 employees in Business Logistics Division (BLD)
- 17 employees in Ayala Operations Center (AOC)
- 18 employees in Magnolia-Manila Buying Station (Magnolia-MBS)
- SMCEU filed several grievance cases seeking redeployment of affected employees.
- Grievance procedure was governed by Sections 5, 6, and 8, Article VIII of the 1990 CBA, providing a three-step settlement process, involving:
- Step 1: Oral and written grievance with immediate superior and Department Manager
- Step 2: Appeal to Plant Manager/Director and grievance meetings
- Step 3: Appeal to Conciliation Board composed of company and union representatives, with option for arbitration afterwards
- During grievance proceedings, most employees were redeployed or accepted early retirement leaving 17 employees when dispute reached Step 3.
- October 26, 1990 – SMC informed the union that remaining 17 would be terminated if not redeployed by November 2, 1990. Meeting adjourned after union declared deadlock.
- Notice of Strike and Legal Proceedings
- November 7, 1990 – SMCEU filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) based on:
- Petitioner moved to dismiss the strike notice but NCMB failed to act.
- December 21, 1990 – SMC filed complaint with NLRC praying:
- April 16, 1991 – NLRC Second Division dismissed complaint for lack of merit.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner contended:
- It is NLRC’s positive duty to compel arbitration and enjoin strike violating a no-strike clause.
- Injunction is necessary to prevent economic warfare that arbitration is designed to avoid.
- June 3, 1991 – Supreme Court issued Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preserving status quo.
- The Court took up the case for resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s complaint to dismiss the strike notice filed by the union.
- Whether the notice of strike was legal considering the existing grievance and arbitration procedures under the CBA.
- Whether enforcement of the no-strike clause and exhaustion of grievance machinery and arbitration are mandatory before a strike can be declared.
- Whether the petitioner acted in bad faith in declaring redundancy and retrenching employees, thereby justifying the strike.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)