Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION vs HON.

COURT OF APPEALS,
GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION
(GMC-ILU), and RITO MANGUBAT
G.R. No. 146728 February 11, 2004

DOCTRINE: It shall be unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain


collectively as prescribed by this Code

FACTS:
 General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers which are all
members of private respondent General Milling Corporation Independent
Labor Union.
 On April 28, 1989, GMC and the union concluded a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) which included the issue of representation effective for a
term of three years.
 The day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed
CBA, with a request that a counter-proposal be submitted within ten (10)
days.
 However, GMC had received collective and individual letters from workers
who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds
of religious affiliation and personal differences.
 Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC
did not send any counter-proposal.
 The union officers wrote a letter disclaiming any massive disaffiliation or
resignation from the union and submitted a manifesto, signed by its members,
stating that they had not withdrawn from the union.

ISSUE: WON that the action of GMC in not negotiating was ULP.

HELD: YES
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 January 22, 1986

DOCTRINE: Unfair labor practice is committed when it is shown that the respondent
employer, after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by the
petitioning Union, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said
proposal.

FACTS:
 In a certification election, KILUSAN, a legitimate late labor federation, won
and was subsequently certified in a resolution by the BLR as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Sweden Ice
Cream Plant (Company).
 The Union furnished the Company with copies of its proposed CBA. At the
same time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals. The request
were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company.
 The Union filed a “Notice of Strike”, with the BLR on ground of unresolved
economic issues in collective bargaining.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is guilty of ULP for unjustified refusal to bargain

HELD: YES. Petitioner Company is GUILTY of unfair labor practice.


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 specially true where the
Union’s request for a counter proposal is left unanswered