View full case

EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS. v. BAYER PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) and a splinter group led by Avelina Remigio (Remigio) regarding representation and control over the union. EUBP is the exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines and is affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). In 1997, EUBP and Bayer negotiated for the signing of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but the negotiations reached a deadlock, leading to a strike and the assumption of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary. During the dispute, Remigio and 27 other union members accepted Bayer's wage-increase proposal without authorization from their union leaders. The DOLE Secretary later issued an arbitral award ordering EUBP and Bayer to execute a CBA retroactive to 1997. Meanwhile, a rift emerged between EUBP's president, Juanito Facundo, and Remigio's group. Remigio's group solicited signatures from union members to disaffiliate from FFW, rename the union as the Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP), adopt a new constitution and by-laws, abolish existing officer positions, and authorize REUBP to administer the CBA. The two groups engaged in a tug-of-war, seeking recognition from Bayer and demanding remittance of union dues. EUBP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Bayer, and later lodged a complaint against Remigio's group, alleging acts threatening the life of the union. The first unfair labor practice complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and a second complaint was filed, adding charges of organizing a company union and violation of the CBA.

The case also involves a separate issue regarding the enforcement of monetary awards in favor of the petitioners who were found to be illegally dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter issued a decision ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainants and pay them backwages, service incentive leave pay, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but reduced the monetary awards. The decision became final and executory, and writs of execution were issued. However, respondents failed to comply with the court orders, leading to the attachment and levy of their properties. Respondents filed a motion to quash the levy, claiming that the petitioners' rights were no longer enforceable as the properties were transferred. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion, stating that the decision of a Labor Arbiter involving recovery of wages and other benefits remains executory despite the pendency of an appeal. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, but it was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals decided the case in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in finding that certain acts amount to unfair labor practice.

  3. Whether the issues raised by petitioners fall under the circumstance constituting an intra-union dispute as specified in DOLE Department Order No. 40-03.

  4. Whether respondents Remigio and Villareal can be held liable for unfair labor practice.

  5. Whether Bayer, Lonishen and Amistoso are liable for unfair labor practice.

  6. Whether the respondents should be held liable for unfair labor practice and other damages.

RULING:

  1. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter. The Court held that there can be no unfair labor practice on the part of the respondents since the requisites for unfair labor practice were not satisfied. The Court also ruled that the issues raised in the complaint should have been brought before the voluntary arbitrators as provided in the Labor Code. The Court found that the acts complained of did not amount to unfair labor practice.

  2. The issues raised by the petitioners do not fall under the circumstance constituting an intra-union dispute. The issue raised pertained to the validity of the acts of management in light of the fact that it still has an existing CBA with another union, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the NLRC.

  3. Petitioners' unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint against respondents Remigio and Villareal cannot prosper because the issue essentially involves an intra-union dispute, which is outside the scope of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC's jurisdiction.

  4. Bayer, Lonishen, and Amistoso are liable for unfair labor practice. An employer should not unilaterally rescind its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent without legitimate reason and without following the proper procedure. Violations of the terms and conditions of a valid CBA may subject the employer to administrative and criminal liability for unfair labor practice.

  5. Yes, the respondents should be held liable for unfair labor practice. The Court held that the respondents were aware of the duly-elected officers of the labor union and the legitimacy of their mandate. Despite this, the respondents proceeded to negotiate with a splinter union, effectively abandoning recognition of the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent and terminating the entire collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The respondents' conduct reeked of anti-union animus. Thus, they cannot claim good faith to justify their acts.

  6. The Court also ruled that the case is not moot and academic simply because a new CBA had been renegotiated with the certified labor union. A legitimate labor organization does not abandon its pending claim against the employer by returning to the negotiating table to fulfill its duty to represent its members, unless the pending claim has been expressly waived or compromised in the subsequent negotiations. Holding otherwise would discourage protection to labor and allow employers to commit unlawful acts without fear of future sanctions.

  7. As for the damages prayed for, the Court held that a corporation or labor organization cannot be entitled to moral damages as they have no feelings or emotions. However, nominal damages in the amount of P250,000.00 and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the monetary award were awarded. The remittance of collected union dues previously turned over to the splinter union was also ordered.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Intra-union disputes refer to conflicts between and among union members, including grievances arising from violations of rights and conditions of membership or disagreement over provisions of the union's constitution and by-laws. (Section 1, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the Department of Labor and Employment)

  • The requisites for unfair labor practice are that the violation of the collective bargaining agreement should be gross and it should involve violations in the economic provisions of the agreement.

  • Issues involving unfair labor practice should be brought before the voluntary arbitrators as provided in Article 261 of the Labor Code.

  • The jurisdiction of the NLRC extends to disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-organization, union membership, and collective bargaining.

  • Intra-union disputes are disputes or conflicts between and among legitimate labor organizations or between and among members of a union or workers' association.

  • A CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and the employer becomes the law between them.

  • Compliance with the terms and conditions of the CBA is mandated by express policy of the law to afford protection to labor and promote industrial peace.

  • Violations of the CBA may subject the employer to administrative and criminal liabilities for unfair labor practice.

  • Violations of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that can be considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard of the existence of the CBA itself, can be grounds for finding unfair labor practice.

  • An employer's negotiation with a splinter union despite the existence of a valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent constitutes abandonment of recognition of the latter and termination of the entire CBA.

  • Good faith cannot be claimed when the employer is fully aware of the legitimacy of the duly-elected officers of the labor union and the pendency of an intra-union dispute case.

  • A legitimate labor organization does not abandon its pending claim against the employer by returning to the negotiating table, unless the pending claim has been expressly waived or compromised in the subsequent negotiations.

  • A corporation or labor organization cannot be entitled to moral damages and exemplary damages, as they have no feelings or emotions. However, nominal damages and attorney’s fees may be awarded.