Case Digest (G.R. No. 87672)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 87672)
Facts:
Wise and Co., Inc. v. Wise & Co., Inc. Employees Union‑NATU (G.R. No. 87672, October 13, 1989), Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Wise and Co., Inc. (management) promulgated a memorandum circular on April 3, 1987 introducing a profit‑sharing scheme for managers and supervisors, with the initial distribution scheduled for March 31, 1988. On July 3, 1987 the Wise & Co., Inc. Employees Union‑NATU (respondent union) requested inclusion of its members in the scheme; management refused, citing adherence to the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Negotiations for renewal of the CBA (effective May 1, 1985–April 30, 1988) began earlier than the statutory freedom period; on November 11, 1987 management offered to consider including CBA‑covered employees provided ongoing negotiations concluded by December 1987. The parties reached a deadlock over the scope of the bargaining unit; conciliation on March 29, 1988 failed to resolve the dispute. On March 30, 1988 petitioner distributed the profit‑sharing benefit to managers, supervisors, and rank‑and‑file employees who were not covered by the CBA (the CBA explicitly excluded certain office personnel from the bargaining unit).
The union filed a notice of strike, alleging that petitioner committed an unfair labor practice by discriminating against union members in granting the benefit. The parties agreed to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration; after submission of position papers the voluntary arbitrator issued an award on March 20, 1989 ordering petitioner to extend the 1987 profit‑sharing benefit to the union members. Petitioner then filed a petition with the Supreme Court to annul the voluntary arbitrator’s award, alleging, inter alia, that the arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding unlawful discrimination and in ordering extension of the benefit.
Issues:
- Did the voluntary arbitrator commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction warranting annulment of his March 20, 1989 award?
- Was petitioner’s grant of the 1987 profit‑sharing benefit to non‑CBA employees an unlawful, discriminatory act constituting an unfair labor practice against union members?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)