case doctrines in collective bargaining

8/9/2019 Case Doctrines in Collective Bargaining

1/3

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J. 2012

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

UFE-DFA-KMU VD. NESTLE

-issue on retirement plan not part of CBA

negotiations-no violation of duty to bargain-nestle set as a pre condition on bargainingto set aside the issue on retirement plan(not mandatory provision of CBA)

Obviously the purpose of collectivebargaining is the reaching of an agreementresulting in a contract binding on theparties! but the failure to reach anagreement after negotiations havecontinued for a reasonable period does notestablish a lac" of good faith# $he statutesinvite and contemplate a collectivebargaining contract but they do not compelone# $he duty to bargain does not includethe obligation to reach an agreement#

$he crucial %uestion therefore of &hetheror not a party has met his statutory duty tobargain in good faith typically turns on thefacts of the individual case# As &e have saidthere is no per se test of good faith inbargaining# 'ood faith or bad faith is aninference to be dra&n from the facts# $o

some degree the %uestion of good faithmay be a %uestion of credibility# $he efect of an employer s or a union sindividual actions is not the test of good-faith bargaining but the impact of all suchoccasions or actions considered as a &holeand the inferences fairly dra&n therefromcollectively may o er a basis for the *ndingof the +, C# 2.

/or a charge of unfair labor practice toprosper it must be sho&n that +estl &asmotivated by ill &ill bad faith or fraud or&as oppressive to labor or done in amanner contrary to morals good customsor public policy and of course that socialhumiliation &ounded feelings or gravean iety resulted 23 in disclaimingunilateral grants as proper sub4ects in theircollective bargaining negotiations# 5hile thela& ma"es it an obligation for the employerand the employees to bargain collectively&ith each other such compulsion does notinclude the commitment to precipitatelyaccept or agree to the proposals of the

other# All it contemplates is that both partiesshould approach the negotiation &ith an

open mind and ma"e reasonable e ort toreach a common ground of agreement#

6erein the union merely bases its claim of refusal to bargain on a letter 27 dated 28 9ay2001 &ritten by +estl &here the latter laiddo&n its position that "unilateral grants,one-time company grants, company-initiated policies and programs, whichinclude, but are not limited to theRetirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay Premium, are by their very nature not proper subjects o C!"negotiations and there ore shall be e#cludedthere rom$ But as &e have stated in thisCourt s :ecision said letter is nottantamount to refusal to bargain# ;n thin"ingto e clude the issue of etirement


2/3


insist on its position to the point of stalemate#

UST FACULTY UNION VS. UST

-petitioner (&al" out group) %uestions thevalidity of the election of 'amilla group(&inning group) sued =D$ for violation tobargain collectively

;n the instant case until our :ecision in '# #+o# 1E12EF that the 'amilla 'roup &as notvalidly elected into oGce there &as noreason to believe that the members of the'amilla 'roup &ere not the validly electedoGcers and directors of =D$/=# $o reiteratethe 'amilla 'roup submitted a ,etter datedOctober 188. &hereby it informed /r#

olando :e ,a osa that its members &erethe ne&ly elected oGcers and directors of =D$/=# ;n the ,etter every oGcer allegedlyelected &as identi*ed &ith the ,etter signedby the alleged ne&ly elected Decretary'eneral and


3/3


e clusive bargaining status is e ective onlyfor *ve years and can be challenged &ithinsi ty (.0) days prior to the e piration of theCBA s *rst *ve years#

ANDO VS. CAMPO

-as a conse%uence of 4udgment (labor case)petitioner s personal property o&ned &ithhis &ife &as &rongfully levied# Can theregular courts issue ! #!$% &!' Y().

the po&er of the +, C or the courts toe ecute its 4udgment e tends only toproperties un%uestionably belonging to the

4udgment debtor alone# 28 A sheri thereforehas no authority to attach the property of any person e cept that of the 4udgment

debtor#E0

,i"e&ise there is no sho&ing thatthe sheri ever tried to e ecute on theproperties of the corporation#

emedies of a &rong levy third party claim(terceria) or *le an independent civil case torecover the property

PICOP RESOURCES INC VS. DE*UILLA

E | < a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_184007_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_184007_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_184007_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/gr_184007_2011.html#fnt30

case doctrines in collective bargaining

Documents