G.R. No. 141471. September 18,
2000
Facts:
During the renegotiation of the
respondent unions Collective Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor
Ambas emerged as the newly elected President of the union. Ambas wanted to
continue the renegotiation of the CBA but petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao,
claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing by the parties. However,
the union members rejected the said CBA.
Thereafter, petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad
faith before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the
petitioner. This decision was reversed
on appeal with the NLRC.
The parties later agreed to
disregard the unsigned CBA and to start negotiation on new five-year CBA.
During the pendency of approval of proposals, Ambas was informed that her work
schedule was being changed. Ambas
protested and requested management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery
under the old CBA.
After the petitioner’s inaction
on the CBA, the union filed a notice to strike.
After meeting with the NCMB to discuss the ground rules for
renegotiation, Ambas received a letter dismissing her for alleged insubordination. The petitioner then ceased negotiations when
it received news that another labor organization had filed a petition for
certification.
The union finally struck, but the
Secretary of Labor and Employment ordered them to return to work and for
petitioner to accept them back. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment later rendered judgement that the petitioner
had been guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
findings of the former.
Issue(s):
- Whether
petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the
union when it unilaterally suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new CBA;
and
- Whether
the termination of the union president amounts to an interference of the
employees’ right to self-organization.
Held:
The Supreme Court found the
petition unmeritorious.
- The
petitioner’s failure to act upon the submitted CBA proposal within the ten-day
period exemplified in Article 250 of the Labor Code is a clear violation of the
governing procedure of collective bargaining.
As the Court has held in Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, the company’s refusal to
make counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an indication of bad
faith. Moreover, the succeeding events
are obvious signs that the petitioner had merely been employing delaying
tactics to the passage of the proposed CBA.
Moreover, in order to allow the employer to validly suspend the
bargaining process, there must be a valid petition for certification election
raising a legitimate representation issue.
Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election does not
ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer.
- The
factual backdrop of the termination of Ambas led the Court to no other
conclusion that she was dismissed in order to strip the union of a leader who
would fight for the right of her co-workers in the bargaining table. While the Court recognizes the right of the
employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized
cause, nevertheless, the dismissal of employees must be made within the
parameters of aw and pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play. Even assuming arguendo that Ambas was guilty
of insubordination, such disobedience was not a valid ground to terminate her
employment. When the exercise of the
management to discipline its employees tends to interfere with the employees’
right to self-organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a
prohibited act.
