Case Digest (G.R. No. 101619)
Facts:
Sanyo Philippines Workers Union-PSSLU Local Chapter No. 109 and/or Antonio Diaz, PSSLU National President v. Hon. Potenciano S. Canizares, et al., G.R. No. 101619, July 08, 1992, Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PSSLU had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Sanyo Philippines, Inc. effective July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994 that contained a union-security clause authorizing the union to demand dismissal of employees who resigned membership, refused to pay dues, or joined/assisted another union, and which obligated the union to hold the company harmless from liability arising from implementation of that clause. On February 7, 1990 PSSLU notified management that it had cancelled the membership of several employees for alleged anti-union activities; some of those employees were members of another union, KAMAO.
On February 14, 1990 a number of KAMAO officers (including Yap, Salvo, Baybon, Solibel, Valencia, Misterio and Ricohermoso) executed a written pledge of cooperation with PSSLU, promising among other things to respect and honor the CBA and to pay an agency fee. On March 4, 1991 PSSLU again wrote to Sanyo recommending the dismissal of several employees (both non-union and union members) alleging anti-union acts, violations of the pledge of cooperation, and threats against union officers; the union suggested that the Grievance Machinery provided in the CBA be convened before actual dismissal.
Acting on the union's recommendation, Sanyo placed the listed employees on preventive suspension effective March 13, 1991 and, because no appeals to the union were reported, considered them dismissed as of March 23, 1991. On May 20, 1991 the dismissed employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC naming PSSLU and Sanyo as respondents.
On June 20, 1991 PSSLU moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, invoking Article 217(c) of P.D. 442 (as amended by R.A. No. 6715) which directs that cases arising from interpretation or implementation of CBAs be referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. The complainants opposed, arguing the NLRC had jurisdiction because the controversy involved an actual termination and termination disputes are within the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction under Article 217(a)(2).
The respondent Labor Arbiter issued an order dated August 7, 1991 holding the motion pending and directing submission of position papers; subsequently (by order of September 4, 1991) the Labor Arbiter announced that he would assume jurisdiction, reasoning that the movants had not shown the existence or effectiveness of a grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrator to whom the case could be referred and that the grievance machinery, being composed of representatives of the union and the company, might lack impartiality vis-à-vis dismissed employees.
On September 19, 1991 PSSLU filed this petition with the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the Labor Arbiter's orders (the deferral and the later assumption of jurisdiction), contending that the dispute involved enforcement of the union-security clause and therefore should have been referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as contemplated by Articles 260–26...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Labor Arbiter lack jurisdiction to resolve the dismissed employees' complaints because the dispute arose from the implementation or enforcement of the CBA and therefore had to be referred to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration under Article 217(c) and related provisions?
- If jurisdiction properly lies with the Labor Arbiter, was the Labor Arbiter's initial deferment and subsequent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)