Case Digest (G.R. No. 51002-06)
Facts:
Special Events & Central Shipping Office Workers Union v. San Miguel Corporation, J.B. Preysler, National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Amado G. Inciong, and Hon. Blas Ople, G.R. Nos. 51002-06, May 30, 1983, Supreme Court Second Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from union activity in the Special Events and Central Shipping Office of San Miguel Corporation, an office organized in June 1955 to provide event services. Seasonal employees of that office organized into the Special Events and Central Shipping Office Workers Union on July 15, 1966; the union was registered with the Department of Labor on August 9, 1966 and thereafter pursued certification, bargaining and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company. Management had earlier requested proof of majority and the union filed a petition for certification election on October 26, 1966; negotiations produced a CBA thereafter.
From these labor relations tensions five separate unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints were filed by the union and/or individual members: NLRC Case No. 4611-ULP (complainants alleged discriminatory reductions in work, demotions, onerous medical exams, dismissals and refusal to bargain); NLRC Case No. 5191-ULP (complaint over dismissal of 15 union members with employer defenses that some were probationary, casual or found medically unfit at times); NLRC Case No. 5210-ULP (claims arising from attempted conversion of seasonal workers to regular daily-paid status and alleged retaliatory reduction of workdays for those not converted); NLRC Case No. 5408-ULP (challenge to reduction of working days as violating Article IV of the CBA); and NLRC Case No. LR 4412 (challenge to closure of the Special Events Section, alleged dismissals without clearance, and alleged unilateral abrogation of the CBA).
These matters were litigated through the administrative/labor forums: complaints were initially filed with the defunct Court of Industrial Relations or the Labor Arbiter; several Labor Arbiter decisions found respondent company guilty in varying respects (for example, the Labor Arbiter found ULP and ordered separation pay in No. 5191-ULP and found ULP in No. 5408-ULP). The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) En Banc reviewed and in many instances reversed the Labor Arbiter’s findings—finding, inter alia, that evidence supported management’s allocation of work and dismissals for anomalies in returns for empty bottles (No. 4611-ULP); that required proof and procedural facts did not support ULP findings in No. 5191-ULP; that the alleged conversions of later applicants did not materialize because applicants rejected company conditions (No. 5210-ULP); and that the CBA provision relied upon by complainants was too vague to prohibit reductions in working days in the seasonal context (No. 5408-ULP). In LR 4412 the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and recognized management’s prerogative to discontinue the section but awarded separation pay under applicable law. Appeals to the Office of the Minister/Deputy Minister of Labor upheld the NLRC dispositions.
Petitioners brought the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent public officials and the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in making findings of fact not supported by the evidence?
- Did San Miguel Corporation commit unfair labor practices in NLRC Case No. 4611-ULP (dismissals, reduced workdays, demotions, medical exams and refusal to bargain)?
- Did San Miguel Corporation commit unfair labor practices in NLRC Case No. 5191-ULP (dismissal of fifteen members classified as probationary, casual, or medically unfit)?
- Did San Miguel Corporation commit unfair labor practices in NLRC Case No. 5210-ULP (failure to convert later applicants to regular daily-paid status and discriminatory reduction of workdays)?
- Did San Miguel Corporation commit unfair labor practices in NLRC Case No. 5408-ULP (reduction of working days in violation of Article IV of the CBA)?
- Did San Miguel Corporation commit unfair labor practices in NLRC Case No. LR 4412 (...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)