View full case

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the Secretary of Labor finding the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice on two counts. The facts as found by the Secretary of Labor are as follows: In December 1992, the union initiated the renegotiation of its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the petitioner. The union elected a new set of officers, with Eleanor Ambas as the newly elected President. The petitioner claimed that the CBA was already prepared for signing, but the union members rejected it. The petitioner accused the union of bargaining in bad faith. The Labor Arbiter initially decided in favor of the petitioner, but the decision was reversed on appeal. The union then notified the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of its intention to strike due to the petitioner's non-compliance with an NLRC order and refusal to bargain. The parties agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and start negotiations on a new one, but the petitioner failed to respond to the union's proposals in a timely manner. The union filed a notice of strike and later amended it to include the dismissal of Ambas. The petitioner stopped negotiations after allegedly receiving information about a petition for certification election by another labor organization. The union eventually went on strike, and the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered the striking employees to return to work. The Secretary declared the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement of Ambas with backwages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Secretary's ruling.

Note: The partial digest only includes the section on "FACTS" and does not elaborate on the issues, rulings, or principles of the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's failure to make a timely reply to the union's proposals constitute a violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code.

  2. Whether the petitioner's actions, such as changing the union president's work schedule and dismissing her for alleged insubordination, constitute unfair labor practice.

  3. Whether the petitioner's suspension of the negotiation based on the filing of a petition for certification election is justified.

  4. Whether or not the filing of a petition for certification election constitutes a bar to ongoing negotiations during the freedom period of a collective bargaining agreement.

  5. Whether or not the dismissal of the union president was done in violation of the employees' right to self-organization.

RULING:

  1. Yes. The petitioner's failure to make a timely reply to the union's proposals violates Article 250 of the Labor Code. The company's refusal to make a counter-proposal indicates its bad faith and clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.

  2. Yes. The petitioner's actions, such as changing the union president's work schedule and dismissing her for alleged insubordination, constitute unfair labor practice. These actions demonstrate the petitioner's lack of sincere desire to negotiate and its use of delaying tactics to prevent bargaining.

  3. No. The mere filing of a petition for certification election does not justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. In order to suspend the bargaining process, there must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate representation issue. The petition must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period, and in this case, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day period.

  4. The filing of a petition for certification election does not constitute a bar to ongoing negotiations during the freedom period of a collective bargaining agreement. The existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement bars the filing of a petition for certification election, and thus, there is no legitimate representation issue. As such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.

  5. The dismissal of the union president was conducted in violation of the employees' right to self-organization. While the employer has the right to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, it must be done in good faith and must not interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. In this case, the dismissal of the union president was heavily tainted with bad faith and was designed to interfere with the members' right to self-organization. Therefore, the dismissal of the union president violated the employees' right to self-organization.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Failure to make a timely reply to proposals in collective bargaining constitutes a violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code and indicates bad faith.

  • Actions such as changing work schedules and dismissing union officers for alleged insubordination can constitute unfair labor practice.

  • The mere filing of a petition for certification election does not automatically justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must comply with the provisions of the Labor Code, including being filed within the sixty-day freedom period.

  • The filing of a petition for certification election does not bar ongoing negotiations during the freedom period of a collective bargaining agreement.

  • The employer's right to terminate the services of an employee for just or authorized cause must be exercised in good faith and must not interfere with the employees' right to self-organization.

  • The dismissal of an employee must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the principles of equity and fair play.