FACTS:

From 1992 to 1994, there was an industrial dispute between the Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa Remerco Garments Manufacturing Inc. - KMM Kilusan (union) and Remerco Garments Manufacturing, Inc. (RGMI), resulting in a strike. The strike was declared illegal and all union officers were dismissed. Some employees were paid separation pay while others were recalled on the condition that they would be paid on a piece-rate basis instead of a daily rate. The union subsequently filed a notice of strike, claiming that RGMI violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by conducting a time and motion study and changing the salary scheme without consulting the union. RGMI filed a notice of lockout and transferred its factory site while the conciliation process was ongoing. The union went on strike and blocked the entry to RGMI's new premises. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered the striking workers to return to work. The union filed a position paper seeking reinstatement and payment of unpaid salaries based on the daily rate provided in the CBA. RGMI disputed the strike's legality and sought to declare the striking workers to have abandoned their employment. The Secretary of Labor found that RGMI did not lock out its employees and validated the change in salary scheme based on a time and motion study. The Secretary of Labor ordered all employees to return to work and RGMI to pay unpaid salaries on a piece-rate basis. Petitioners, who were among the recalled employees, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and sought payment of accrued salaries and benefits under the CBA. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the issues were subject to grievance procedures outlined in the CBA. The labor arbiter found in favor of the petitioners and ordered respondents to pay.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint considering the pending conciliation proceedings in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).

2. Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction to resolve alleged violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and whether the grievance procedure should be followed.

RULING:

1. The labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint, despite the pending conciliation proceedings in the NCMB. The principle of primary jurisdiction does not divest the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the complaint. The principle only requires the suspension of the proceedings before the labor arbiter while the parties are engaged in conciliation proceedings. In this case, the labor arbiter can proceed with the complaint upon notice of termination of the conciliation proceedings or upon expiration of the 30-day period provided for in Article 277(b) of the Labor Code.

2. The labor arbiter has jurisdiction to resolve alleged violations of the CBA and is not required to follow the grievance procedure. The jurisdiction of the labor arbiter extends to resolving any unfair labor practice complaint arising from violations of the CBA. The grievance procedure in the CBA is not an exclusive remedy and does not prevent the labor arbiter from exercising jurisdiction over complaints involving CBA violations. The labor arbiter can independently adjudicate alleged violations of the CBA.

PRINCIPLES:

• The principle of primary jurisdiction requires the suspension of proceedings before the labor arbiter while the parties are engaged in conciliation proceedings. However, it does not divest the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the complaint. (Jurisdiction)

• The labor arbiter has jurisdiction to resolve alleged violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and is not required to follow the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA. The jurisdiction of the labor arbiter extends to resolving any unfair labor practice complaint arising from CBA violations. The grievance procedure in the CBA is not an exclusive remedy and does not prevent the labor arbiter from exercising jurisdiction over complaints involving CBA violations. (Jurisdiction)