Case Digest (G.R. No. 158930-31)
Facts:
UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees of Nestle Philippines, Incorporated in the Alabang and Cabuyao plants. When the existing CBA expired in June 2001, the union and the company entered collective bargaining negotiations for 2001–2004, but Nestle insisted—via correspondence—that unilateral grants such as the Retirement Plan were not proper subjects for CBA bargaining and should be excluded. After failed conciliation, UFE-DFA-KMU filed two Notices of Strike before the NCMB, and Nestle sought DOLE assumption of jurisdiction; DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas assumed jurisdiction, enjoined any strike, and later directed a return-to-work after a strike occurred, ultimately ruling on the Retirement Plan and dismissing the ULP charge.The Court of Appeals granted UFE-DFA-KMU’s certiorari petitions, annulling the DOLE orders and directing the parties to resume CBA negotiations. Upon review, the Supreme Court partially granted Nestle’s petition (on t
Case Digest (G.R. No. 158930-31)
Facts:
- Parties and bargaining relationship
- UFE-DFA-KMU was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Nestle Philippines, Incorporated whose bargaining unit covered Nestle’s Alabang and Cabuyao plants.
- The existing CBA between Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU was to end on 5 June 2001.
- The Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of UFE-DFA-KMU informed Nestle of their intent to open new collective bargaining negotiations for 2001–2004 as early as June 2001.
- Nestle responded that it was preparing its own counter-proposal and proposed ground rules for the impending CBA negotiations.
- In a letter dated 29 May 2001 addressed to UFE-DFA-KMU (Cabuyao Division only), Nestle reiterated that unilateral grants, one-time company grants, and company-initiated policies and programs—including but not limited to the Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay, and Calling Pay Premium—were not proper subjects of CBA negotiations and were to be excluded.
- Dialogue between Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU thereafter ensued.
- Preventive mediation, deadlock, and notices of strike
- On 14 August 2001, Nestle requested the NCMB, Regional Office No. IV, Imus, Cavite, to conduct preventive mediation due to an alleged impasse: despite fifteen (15) meetings, the parties failed to reach agreement on the proposed CBA.
- The conciliation proceedings proved ineffective.
- On 31 October 2001, UFE-DFA-KMU filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB, alleging in essence a bargaining deadlock on economic issues, including retirement (plan), panel composition, costs and attendance, and CBA.
- On 7 November 2001, UFE-DFA-KMU filed a second Notice of Strike, this time predicated on Nestle’s alleged unfair labor practices: bargaining in bad faith by setting pre-conditions in the ground rules and/or refusing to include the issue of the Retirement Plan in the CBA negotiations.
- The strike vote of UFE-DFA-KMU members resulted in overwhelming approval to hold a strike.
- UFE-DFA-KMU’s first Notice of Strike dated 31 October 2001 cited economic issues; the second Notice of Strike dated 7 November 2001 cited unfair labor practices and specifically “Setting pre-condition in the ground rules (Retirement issue).”
- DOLE assumption of jurisdiction and enforcement events
- On 26 November 2001, prior to holding the strike, Nestle filed with the DOLE a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction, praying that the Secretary of DOLE assume jurisdiction to enjoin any impending strike at Nestle’s Cabuyao Plant in Laguna.
- On 29 November 2001, Sec. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute pursuant to Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended.
- The assailed 29 November 2001 Order enjoined any strike or lockout, directed the parties to cease and desist from acts that might worsen labor relations, and directed the parties to meet and convene for discussion of union proposals and company counter-proposals before the NCMB designated as delegate/facilitator.
- The NCMB was directed to report results within thirty (30) days from receipt, in no case later than 31 December 2001.
- Sec. Sto. Tomas denied UFE-DFA-KMU’s motion for reconsideration on 14 January 2002, but UFE-DFA-KMU sought additional time to file its position paper.
- On 15 January 2002, UFE-DFA-KMU members nonetheless went on strike despite the enjoining order and the conciliation efforts.
- On 16 January 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas ordered: (1) a return-to-work within twenty-four (24) hours; (2) Nestle to accept back returning workers under prior terms and conditions; (3) both parties to cease and desist from acts inimical to the ongoing conciliation; and (4) submission of position papers within ten (10) days.
- Despite the return-to-work order, the strike continued, prompting Sec. Sto. Tomas to seek the assistance of the PNP for enforcement.
- On 7 February 2002, Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU filed their respective position papers.
- Nestle addressed multiple economic issues and also argued for non-inclusion of the Retirement Plan in collective bargaining negotiations.
- UFE-DFA-KMU limited itself to whether the Retirement Plan was a mandatory subject for bargaining.
- On 11 February 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas allowed UFE-DFA-KMU to tender its stand on other issues raised by Nestle not covered by the initial position paper through a supplemental position paper.
- Instead, UFE-DFA-KMU filed several pleadings, including a Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration challenging the 11 February 2002 order as contrary to law, jurisprudence, and the evidence.
- UFE-DFA-KMU contended that Sec. Sto. Tomas could assume jurisdiction only over issues mentioned in the amended Notice of Strike and that the amended Notice of Strike did not cite CBA deadlock as a ground.
- On 8 March 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas denied UFE-DFA-KMU’s motion for reconsideration.
- UFE-DFA-KMU then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the 11 February 2002 and 8 March 2002 orders.
- While the case was pending, Acting Secretary Arturo D. Brion issued an Order dated 2 April 2002, recognizing that the present Retirement Plan at the Nestle Cabuyao Plant was a unilateral grant based on Nestle Phils. Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 90231, February 4, 1991, and thus not a mandatory subject for bargaining.
- The Acting Secretary dismissed the union’s charge of unfair labor practice for lack of merit.
- The Acting Secretary directed the parties to secure the best applicable terms of CBAs concluded by Nestle with eight (8) other bargaining units and to adopt these as terms and conditions of the new Cabuyao Plant CBA.
- Demands not covered by those other CBAs were denied, and existing provisions of the expired Cabuyao Plant CBA without counterparts in the other CBAs were ordered maintained.
- The Acting Secretary ordered execution of the CBA within thirty (30) days, with a five (5)-year representation term, and directed renegotiation of all other provisions no later than three (3) years after the effective date, which was December 5, 2001 (or on the first day six months after the expiration on June 4, 2001 of the superseded CBA).
- UFE-DFA-KMU moved for reconsideration; the Acting Secretary denied it on 6 May 2002.
- UFE-DFA-KMU again went to the Court of Appeals by Petition for Certiorari, seeking annulment of the 2 April 2002 and 6 May 2002 orders for alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Court of Appeals decision and subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court
- On 27 February 2003, the Court of Appeals granted both petitions in favor of UFE-DFA-KMU.
- The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the assailed DOLE orders, namely: those dated 11 February 2002 and 8 March 2002 (CA-G.R. SP No. 69805) and those dated 2 April 2002 and 6 May 2002 (CA-G.R. SP No. 71540).
- The Court of Appeals directed private respondent to resume CBA negotiations with petitioner.
- Nestle appealed, contesting the part of the Court of Appeals decision finding that the Retirement Plan was not a valid issue and contesting that the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction should be limited.
- UFE-DFA-KMU questioned the Court of Appeals finding that Nestle was free from unfair labor practice.
- Both parties’ motions for reconsideration were denied in a joint Resolution dated 27 June 2003.
- UFE-DFA-KMU and Nestle filed separate Petitions for Re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Unfair labor practice charge against Nestle
- Whether Nestle committed unfair labor practice by allegedly setting a precondition to bargaining, particularly by insisting on exc