LABOR RELATIONS

What is Collective Bargaining? It is a process where the parties agree to fix and administer terms and conditions of
employment which must not be below the minimum standards fixed by law, and set a mechanism for resolving their
grievances.

What is Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? It is a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to
wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or
questions under such agreement.

Is the ratification of the CBA by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit mandatory? Yes. The agreement
negotiated by the employees’ bargaining agent should be ratified or approved by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit.

Is there any exception to the requirement of mandatory ratification by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit? Yes. Ratification of the CBA by the employees in the bargaining unit is not needed when the CBA is a
product of an arbitral award by appropriate government authority or by a voluntary arbitrator.

What constitutes CBA registration? It is a process of determining whether the application for registration of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement complies with the Rules on CBA registration specifically Rule XVII of the Department Order No. 40-
03 or the Rules amending the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

What is the effect of the CBA registration? The registration of the CBA will bar a certification election except within the
last sixty days (freedom period) before the expiration of the five-year CBA.

What is the lifetime of a CBA? With respect to representation aspect, the CBA lasts for 5 years. However, not later than 3
years after the execution of the CBA, the economic provisions shall be renegotiated.

What is the freedom period? It refers to the last sixty days immediately preceding the expiration of the five-year CBA. A
petition for certification election may be filed during the freedom period.

Where to file the application for CBA registration? The application for CBA registration shall be filed at the Regional
Office that issued the certificate of registration or certificate of creation of chartered local of the labor union-party to the
agreement.

When to file the application for CBA registration? The application for registration of the CBA shall be filed within thirty
(30) days from the execution of such CBA.

What are the requirements for CBA registration? The following are the requirements for CBA registration (original and
two (2) duplicate copies which must be certified under oath by the representative of the employer and labor union
concerned): a) The Collective Bargaining Agreement; b) A statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was posted in
at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment concerned for at least five (5) days before its ratification; and c) A
statement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was ratified by the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit of
the employer concerned.

Is registration fee required? Yes. The certificate of CBA registration shall be issued by the DOLE Regional Office only
upon payment of the prescribed registration fee.

DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation
to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
wages, hours of work and all other terms and any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a
contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party, but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a
proposal or to make any concession. (Article 252 LC)
 DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY

Duty to bargain collectively in the Duty to bargain collectively when there

absence of collective bargaining exists a collective bargaining agreement.
agreements.
When there is a collective bargaining
In the absence of an agreement or agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall
other voluntary arrangement also mean that neither party shall terminate or
providing for a more expeditious modify such agreement during its lifetime.
manner of collective bargaining, it However, either party can serve a written notice
shall be the duty of the employer to terminate or modify the agreement at least
and the representatives of the sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall
employees to bargain collectively in be the duty of both parties to keep the status
accordance with the provisions of quo and to continue in full force and effect the
this Code. (Article 251 LC) term and conditions of the existing agreement
during the 60-day period and/or until a new
agreement is reached by the parties. (Article
253 LC)

PROCEDURE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

(Article 250 LC)

A PARTY DESIRES TO DESIRING PARTY SERVES OTHER PARTY REPLIES NOT

NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT. WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS LATER THAN TEN DAYS
PROPSAL. FROM RECEIPT OF NOTICE.

DURING CONCILIATION, IF DISPUTE IS NOT SETTLED,

PARTIES ARE PROHIBITED TO BOARD SHALL INTERVENE
DISRUPT OR IMPEDE THE UPON REQUEST OR OWN IN CASE OF DIFFRENCES,
EARLY SETTLEMENT OF THE INITIATIVE AND CALL FOR EITHER PARTY MAY
DISPUTES. CONCILLATION MEETINGS. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE
TO BEGIN NOT LATER THAN
10 DAYS.

Parties in CBA

Terms or mandatory provisions

of CBA:

1. Wages
2. Hours of work Management (Employer)- refers
Exclusive Bargaining 3. Vacations and Holidays
Representative refers to a legitimate to any person or entity who
4. Bonuses employs the services of others,
labor organization duly recognize or
certified as the sole or agent of all 5. Pensions and one for whom employees work
the employees in a bargaining unit. retirement plans aho pays their wages or salaries.
6. Lay-offs
7. Employees workload
8. Work rules and
regulations
9. Union Security
Arrangements
10. Grievance Machinery
11. Voluntary Arbitration
12. Other benefits under
Labor Standards
The employer is not under the legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. The preconditions in order to enter in a CBA:
1. Possession of the status of majority representation of the employees’ representative in accordance with any of the
means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code;
2. Proof of majority representation;
3. A demand to bargain under Article 256, Par. (a)
Duration (Term) of the CBA:

 With respect to representation aspect (refers to identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the CBA as
the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit), lasts for 5 years after the execution of the CBA.
 With respect to other provions: 1. economic (agreements with regard to wages, bonuses, incentives and other terms
and conditions for the benefit of the employee) 2. non-economic (includes management prerogatives, union security
clauses) may lasts for 3 years after the execution of the CBA.
When there is no CBA- it shall be the duty of employer and representatives of the employee to bargain collectively in
accordance with the provisions of the labor code. (LC, Art 262)
When there is a CBA- the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such
agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least
60 days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
the parties (LC, Art 264)
Labor Management Council- deals with the employer on matters affecting the employee’s rights, benefits, and welfare. The
purpose of LMC are 1. to strengthen the employees participation; 2. promote gainful employment; 3. improve working
conditions; 4; achieve increased productivity. It can exist where there is no union or co-exist with a union. It must not
replace a union. In short, LMC can deal with the employer on matters affecting the employees’ rights, benefits, and welfare.

WESLAYAN UNIVERSITY v. WUP FACULTY AND STAFF ASSOCIATION

When the provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is clear, leaving no doubt on the intention of the parties,
the literal meaning of the stipulation shall govern.

UST FACULTY UNION v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, ET AL G.R. No. 180892 April 7, 2009

The respondents are not guilty of Unfair Labor Practice. The fact of the matter is, the Gamilla Group represented itself to
respondents as the duly elected officials of the USTFU.22 As such, respondents were bound to deal with them. There was no
reason not to recognize the Gamilla Group as the new officers and directors of USTFU. And as stated in the above-quoted
provisions of the Labor Code, the UST was obligated to deal with the USTFU, as the recognized representative of the
bargaining unit, through the Gamilla Group. UST’s failure to negotiate with the USTFU would have constituted ULP.

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES - DRUG, FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES UNIONS - KILUSANG MAYO
UNO (UFE-DFA-KMU), petitioner, vs. NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED, respondent. G.R. Nos. 158944-45

The purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement resulting in a contract binding on the parties; but the
failure to reach an agreement after negotiations have continued for a reasonable period does not establish a lack of good faith.
The statutes invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract, but they do not compel one. The duty to bargain does not
include the obligation to reach an agreement. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that Nestlé
was motivated by ill will, "bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy.

In the case at bar, Nestle never refused to bargain collectively with UFE-DFA-KMU. The corporation simply wanted to
exclude the Retirement Plan from the issues to be taken up during CBA negotiations, on the postulation that such was in the
nature of a unilaterally granted benefit. An employer’s steadfast insistence to exclude a particular substantive provision is no
different from a bargaining representative’s perseverance to include one that they deem of absolute necessity.
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION
INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), and RITO MANGUBAT G.R. No. 146728

The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. The relation between labor and
management should be undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. Hence, it is indisputable that when the union
requested for a renegotiation of the economic terms of the CBA on November 29, 1991, it was still the certified collective
bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation within five (5) years from the date of effectivity of
the CBA on December 1, 1988. The union’s proposal was also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of
effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to
negotiate in good faith with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to bargain anew on the
economic terms of the CBA, the company committed an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. The union
lived up to this obligation when it presented proposals for a new CBA to GMC within three (3) years from the effectivity of
the original CBA. Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, GMC violated
its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice.

KIOK LOY vs. NLRC and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA (KILUSAN) G.R. No. L-54334

Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks
under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound
and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal
obligation. So much so that Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse
“to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or
question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.
A Company’s refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad
faith and this is especially true where the Union’s request for a counter proposal is left unanswered.

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, September 18, 2000

Petitioner’s utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals
presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union, petitioner still had not made any
counter-proposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13,
1996. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as
its excuse for failing to file its reply. The petitioners 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.
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.

PAL v. PALEA, March 12, 2008

It is a well settled doctrine that the CBA extends to the laborers and employees in the collective bargaining agreement,
including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, there would be discrimination.
Hence, the benefits of the CBA should be given to all employees who are members of the bargaining unit, not necessarily of
the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent. A bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given
employer, comprised of all or less that all of the entire body of employees which the collective interest of all the employees,
consistent with equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties o% the parties
under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
Article 253-A. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) vs. Sama-
SamangNagkakaisangManggagawasa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-
FVC-SIGLO), 606 SCRA 198, G.R. No. 176249

Whether or not the negotiated extension of the CBA term has legal effect on the FVCLU-PTGWO’s exclusive bargaining
representation status which remained effective only for five years ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003.

No. While the parties may agree to extend the CBA’s original five-year term together with all other CBA provisions, any
such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive collective bargaining
status. By express provision of the above-quoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years
and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an
agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by amendment, the bargaining
union’s exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the CBA’s first five years.

San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Confesor, 262 SCRA 81, G.R. No. 111262 September 19, 1996

Article 253-A is a new provision. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6715 (the Herrera-Veloso Law)
which took effect on March 21, 1989. This new provision states that the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three
years, before the amendment of the law as far as the representation aspect is concerned. All other provisions of the CBA shall
be negotiated not later than three (3) years after its exe-cution. The “representation aspect” refers to the identity and majority
status of the union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit
concerned. “All other provisions” simply refers to the rest of the CBA, economic as well as non-economic provisions, except
representation. In the instant case, it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the non-representation provisions
of the CBA. Taking it from the history of their CBAs, SMC intended to have the terms of the CBA effective for three (3)
years reckoned from the expiration of the old or previous CBA which was on June 30, 1989, as it provides: SECTION 1. This
Agreement which shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors-in-interest, shall become effective
and shall remain in force and effect until June 30, 1992.

Article 254. Injunction prohibited.

Ando vs. Campo, 643 SCRA 513, G.R. No. 184007 February 16, 2011

Whether or not the RTC, or any regular court, may issue a TRO to prevent the execution of the Notice of Sale on
Execution of Personal Property. No. The Court has long recognized that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders, or awards rendered in
labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to
sanction splitting of jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making.

ISAE vs. QUISUMBING (G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000)

Whether the foreign-hires should be included in bargaining unit of local- hires. NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3,
specifically provides that labor is entitled to “humane conditions of work.” These conditions are not restricted to the physical
workplace – the factory, the office or the field – but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. The factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are (1) the will of the employees (Globe
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees’ interest, such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of
compensation and working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining history; and (4)
similarity of employment status.

The basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will
best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. In the case at bar, it does not appear that
foreign-hires have indicated their intention to be grouped together with local-hires for purposes of collective bargaining.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (NAFTU) vs. MAINIT LUMBER DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY WORKERS UNION-UNITED LUMBER AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
(MALDECOWU-ULGWP)[G.R. No. 79526 : December 21, 1990.]

Moreover, while the existence of bargaining history is a factor that may be reckoned with in determining the appropriate
bargaining unit, the same is not decisive or conclusive. Other factors must be considered. The test of grouping is
community or mutuality of interests. This is so because "the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is
whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights." Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the employees of the Sawmill Division and the Logging
Division. Their functions mesh with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them
both. There may be difference as to the nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant
the formation of a separate bargaining unit.

Modes in Determining Exclusive Bargaining Representative (Art. 256-259)

Art. 256. Representation issue in organized establishments. In organized establishments, when a verified petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment
within the sixty-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically
order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent
(25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To
have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving
the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. When an
election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off
election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total
number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast.

At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)

Art. 257. Petitions in unorganized establishments. In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a
certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor
organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

Art. 258. When an employer may file petition. When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the
Bureau for an election. If there is no existing certified collective bargaining agreement in the unit, the Bureau shall, after
hearing, order a certification election.

All certification cases shall be decided within twenty (20) working days.

The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within twenty (20) days in accordance with the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

Art. 259. Appeal from certification election orders. Any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election
as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and
regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the election have been
violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days. (As amended by Section 25, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)

Article 256

PICOP RESOURCES INC. V. DEQUILLA (2011)

PICOP claims that privaterespondents violated this provision when they campaigned for, supported and signedFFW’s petition for
certification election on March 19 and 20, 2000, before the onset of thefreedom period.It is Article 256 that applies. Based on
the provision, it can be said that while it isincumbent for the employer to continue to recognize the majority status of
the incumbentbargaining agent even after the expiration of the freedom period, they could only do sowhen no petition for
certification election was filed. The reason is, with a pending petitionfor certification, any such agreement entered into by management
with a labor organizationis fraught with the risk that such a labor union may not be chosen thereafter as thecollective bargaining
representative. The provision for status quo is conditioned on the factthat no certification election was filed during the
freedom period. Any other view wouldrender nugatory the clear statutory policy to favor certification election as the means
of ascertaining the true expression of the will of the workers as to which labor organizationwould represent them. An existing
CBA cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for certificationelection. When there is a representational issue, the status
quo provision in so far as theneed to await the creation of a new agreement will not apply.

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES- MANILA

PAVILION HOTEL CHAPTER vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS, HOLIDAY INN MANILA PAVILION HOTEL LABOR UNION

Whether HIMPHLU was able to obtain the required majority for it to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent.

It is well-settled that under the so-called “double majority rule,” for there to be a valid certification election, majority of the
bargaining unit must have voted AND the winning union must have garnered majority of the valid votes cast. Prescinding
from the Court’s ruling that all the probationary employees’ votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory
employees should be excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase – from 321 to 337. Under Article
256 of the Labor Code, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be certified as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit. This majority is 50% + 1. Hence,
50% of 337 is 168.5 + 1 or at least 170. HIMPHLU obtained 169 while petitioner received 151 votes. Clearly, HIMPHLU
was not able to obtain a majority vote. The position of both the SOLE and the appellate court that the opening of the 17
segregated ballots will not materially affect the outcome of the certification election as for, so they contend, even if such
member were all in favor of petitioner, still, HIMPHLU would win, is thus untenable. Having declared that no choice in the
certification election conducted obtained the required majority, it follows that a run-off election must be held to determine
which between HIMPHLU and petitioner should represent the rank-and-file employees.