View full case

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) and the Royal Plant Workers Union (ROPWU) regarding the removal of chairs in the bottling plant of CCBPI. CCBPI removed the chairs provided for the bottling operators as part of its "I Operate, I Maintain, I Clean" program, which requires operators to constantly move about to keep the machinery and equipment clean and safe. ROPWU argued that the removal of chairs was invalid and constituted a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Standards. The parties initiated the grievance machinery of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but failed to reach a settlement. ROPWU sent a Notice to Arbitrate, and the parties appointed an Arbitration Committee to resolve the central issue of the validity of the chair removal.

The Arbitration Committee ruled in favor of the Union, stating that the removal of chairs was not valid. They noted the lack of evidence provided by CCBPI regarding incidents of sleeping on duty or accidents/injuries related to the use of chairs.

CCBPI filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified and set aside the decision of the Arbitration Committee. The CA held that the removal of chairs fell within the management prerogative of CCBPI and would enhance the efficiency and safety of the bottling operators. The provision of chairs was not part of the CBA and was dependent upon the exigencies of the work.

In another case involving CCBPI and the Coca-Cola Enterprises Employees Union (Union), the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators declared the removal of chairs as not valid. However, the CA reversed the decision of the Panel, ruling that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy to challenge the decision. The Union argues that the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that there is no connection between CCBPI's program and the removal of chairs. CCBPI maintains that the removal of chairs was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative done in good faith.

ISSUES:

  1. Is an appeal to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 a proper remedy to question the decision of the Arbitration Committee?

  2. Was the removal of the bottling operators' chairs from CCBPI's production/manufacturing lines a valid exercise of a management prerogative?

  3. Whether the removal of the subject chairs constitutes a violation of occupational health and safety standards, the policy of the State to assure a just and humane condition of work, the Global Workplace Rights Policy of CCBPI, and the diminution of benefits provided in Article 100 of the Labor Code.

  4. Whether the removal of the chairs is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

  5. Whether there is a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by the management's removal of chairs for the bottling operators.

  6. Whether the removal of chairs violates the general principles of justice and fair play.

  7. Whether the removal of chairs violates Article 100 of the Labor Code.

  8. Whether the provision of chairs for bottling operators can be considered as "benefits" under Article 100 of the Labor Code.

RULING:

  1. The CA ruling that the recourse taken by CCBPI in appealing the decision of the Arbitration Committee was proper is sustained. The appeal via a petition for review under Rule 43 is the proper remedy.

  2. The CA ruling that the removal of the bottling operators' chairs was a valid exercise of management prerogative is also sustained.

  3. The Court held that the removal of the subject chairs does not constitute a violation of labor laws. There is no law that requires employers to provide chairs for male workers. The Labor Code only requires employers to provide seats for women. Furthermore, the removal of the chairs was compensated by a reduction of the operating hours and an increase in the break period, ensuring the welfare of the bottling operators. The removal of the chairs did not expose the operators to safety and health hazards.

  4. The Court ruled that the removal of the chairs is a valid exercise of management prerogative. Management is free to regulate all aspects of employment, including working methods and working regulations. In this case, the removal of the chairs was done with good intentions to increase work efficiency and prevent operators from sleeping on the job. It was made in good faith and without doing any harm to the workers' rights.

  5. There is no violation of the CBA as it does not contain any provision requiring the management to provide chairs for the operators. The provision in the CBA states that benefits and/or privileges not expressly given therein but presently granted by the company shall be considered as purely voluntary acts by the management. The long practice of providing chairs did not convert it into an obligation or vested right.

  6. The removal of chairs does not violate the general principles of justice and fair play as the operators' working time was reduced and their break period was increased. The new work schedule provides a just and fair rest period.

  7. The removal of chairs does not violate Article 100 of the Labor Code. The term "benefits" mentioned in the non-diminution rule refers to monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents, which form part of the employees' wage, salary, or compensation. The operators' chairs are not considered as one of the covered employee benefits under Article 100.

  8. No, the provision of chairs for bottling operators cannot be considered as "benefits" under Article 100 of the Labor Code. The interpretation of Article 100 does not support the inclusion of such provision of chairs as a benefit covered by the law. The exercise of management prerogatives and the non-interference with legitimate business decisions are recognized by jurisprudence and labor laws. The court must protect the welfare of employees as well as the rights of employers.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is appealable to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • The decisions of voluntary arbitrators issued pursuant to the Labor Code do not fall within the exception to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

  • The removal of chairs from production/manufacturing lines may be considered a valid exercise of management prerogative.

  • Management prerogative is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.

  • The exercise of management prerogative includes the regulation of various aspects of employment, such as work assignments, working methods, and working regulations.

  • There is no law that requires employers to provide chairs for male workers, unless specified for women.

  • Compensation for the removal of certain benefits, such as chairs, can be provided through other means that ensure the welfare and efficiency of workers.

  • The removal of benefits must not expose workers to safety and health hazards.

  • Prolonged sitting in the workplace can be hazardous to one's health, and promoting movement and physical activity is beneficial for employees.

  • The provisions of the CBA govern the relationship between the company and employees, and benefits not expressly provided in the agreement are voluntary acts on the part of the company.

  • The removal of chairs may not violate the general principles of justice and fair play if there is an improvement in the employees' work schedule.

  • Article 100 of the Labor Code pertains to the non-diminution of monetary benefits or privileges with monetary equivalents.

  • The provision of chairs for bottling operators does not fall within the scope of "benefits" under Article 100 of the Labor Code.

  • Labor laws discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business.

  • The court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers.

  • The law must protect the welfare of employees and the rights of employers.