Case Summary (G.R. No. 170007)
Negotiation Background
The negotiation process commenced with discussions on ground rules and political items before transitioning to economic items on July 27, 2004. The union proposed a 20% annual across-the-board salary increase for the next three years, while the company countered with a lump sum of ₱80,000 annually over the same duration. The union requested further justification of the proposal, but the company's refusal to provide additional details led the union to reject the counter-offer and maintain its original proposal.
Escalation of Disputes
Negotiations continued, and during the 39th meeting on August 24, 2004, the union modified its demand to a 12% annual increase, whereas the company's counter-offer was increased to ₱88,000 per year. The union further requested financial data to substantiate the company's stance but remained dissatisfied with the explanations provided, alleging that the company was bargaining in bad faith. When the company proposed declaring a deadlock during their 41st meeting and suggested third-party assistance, the union opted to file a Notice of Strike citing bad faith bargaining instead.
Secretary of Labor and Employment's Intervention
On September 16, 2004, the union conducted a strike vote which resulted in unanimous support for the strike. In response, the company filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, invoking Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Secretary granted the petition through an order dated September 20, 2004, citing the potential impact of a strike on the national interest and enjoining any concerted actions by the parties, thereby also requiring them to maintain the status quo.
Legal Proceedings
Following the Secretary's order, the union sought a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals, contending that the Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion. The union claimed that there was no legitimate CBA deadlock at the time of the order, which contravened the agreed ground rules necessitating mutual consent for a deadlock declaration.
Court of Appeals' Ruling
The Court of Appeals dismissed the union's petition, asserting the Secretary's authority under the Labor Code to address all controversies arising from the labor dispute, including the economic issues contested by the union. It found that the union's arguments were moot given that the labor dispute had already been resolved by the Secretary's decision, which had established a deadlock and absolved the company of charges of bad faith bargaining.
Subsequent Complaints
During the pendency of the certiorari petition, the union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Commission, which was later consolidated with the proceedings at the Secretary's level. The Secretary subsequently issued a final decision affirming the bargaining deadlock and dismissing the union's claims of bad faith, awarding a lump sum payment instead of the proposed annual wage increase.
Current Petition
The union, now appealing to the Supreme Court, contends that the company committed unfair labor practice through bad faith bargaining and disputes the characterization of a deadlock. The company counters that the Secretary's decision is f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170007)
Background of the Case
- The case involves the Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association (petitioner) and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (respondent).
- It is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' Decision on August 8, 2005, which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner.
- The controversy arose as the parties negotiated a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to replace the expired CBA from 2001 to 2004.
Negotiating History
- Negotiations began anticipating the CBA's expiration on April 30, 2004, with discussions starting on July 27, 2004.
- The union proposed a 20% annual salary increase for the next three years.
- The company countered with a lump sum payment of P80,000 annually for the same duration.
- The union requested detailed justifications for the company's counter-proposal, which the company refused, leading to the union's rejection of the counter-offer.
- After further negotiations, the union lowered its demand to a 12% increase, while the company increased its lump sum offer to P88,000.
Dispute and Union's Actions
- The union continued to request additional financial data and justifications, asserting the company's refusal to provide this information indicated bad faith bargaining.
- On September 2, 2004, during the 41st meeting, the company suggested declaring a deadlock and seeking third-party assistance.
- The union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), alleging bad faith on the company's part.
Assumption of Jurisdiction
- Following the Notice of Strike, the company filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
- The Secretary granted this petition on Sep