Case Digest (G.R. No. 224558)
Facts:
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa URSUMCO‑National Federation of Labor (NAMA‑URSUMCO‑NFL), G.R. No. 224558, November 28, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) is a domestic sugar‑milling company; respondent NAMA‑URSUMCO‑NFL is the certified sole and exclusive bargaining representative of petitioner’s rank‑and‑file employees. The parties negotiated a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, whose Article VI, Section 2 classified employment as Permanent/Regular Employees and Regular Seasonal Employees.
Between August and September 2011 the union filed grievances on behalf of 78 employees described as regular seasonal, seeking reclassification to permanent/regular status and salary leveling. After the internal grievance procedure failed, the dispute was submitted to voluntary arbitration before a Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Region VII. The parties filed position papers: the union argued the 78 seasonal employees performed essentially the same work year‑round (including off‑milling repairs) and were paid less despite similar functions; URSUMCO argued the CBA’s classifications bound the union and employer, that regular seasonal employees worked only during the milling season, that off‑season repair work was discretionary/magnanimity or could be outsourced, and that forcing conversion would undermine management prerogatives.
On May 30, 2012 the VA rendered a decision in favor of the union, declaring the 78 concerned regular seasonal employees to be permanent/regular employees provided they rendered an accumulated service of 300 days during off‑season work, but denying the union’s prayer for pay standardization. URSUMCO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In an April 15, 2015 decision the CA affirmed the VA, holding the 78 employees were not temporarily laid off in the off‑milling season because they were repeatedly assigned repair and upkeep work necessary to URSUMCO’s operations; the CA also rejected estoppel beca...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the VA’s declaration that the 78 concerned regular seasonal employees are permanent/regular employ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)