General Milling Corporation v. CA G.R. No.

146728 11 February 2004 Facts:

General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers in its two plants located in Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City all of which are member of GMC Independent Labor Union (Union). GMC and Union concluded a CBA to take effect from 1 December 1988 to 30 November 1991 (3 years). A day before the expiration, 29 November 1991, Union sent GMC a proposed CBA with a request for a counter-proposal. However, as early as October 1991, GMC received a letters from workers that they withdrawn from the Union because of religious and personal differences. Because of this, GMC did not counter-propose and wrote a letter on 16 December 1991 saying that there is no more need to negotiate with a union which no longer existed. The Union replied to the letter and denied any massive disaffiliation by its members. On 13 January 1992, GMC dismissed a union member, Tumbiga on the ground of incompetence. Union protested and requested that such matter should be s ubmitted to the CBAs grievance procedure. GMC denied it referring to their letter on 16 December 1991. Union filed a complaint with the NLRC Cebu City on the grounds of: o Refusal to bargain collectively o Interference to right to self-organization o Discrimination LA dismissed and recommended that a petition for certification election be held to determine if union still enjoys the support of the workders. Union appealed. NLRC set aside LAs decision. Citing Art. 253-A of the Labor Code as Amended by RA No. 6715 which fixed the terms of a CBA. NLRC ordered GMC to abide by the CBA draft proposed by the Union and pay Attys Fees. NLRC pointed out that with the effectivity of RA No. 6715, the duration of the CBA, so far as representation aspect is concerned, is five (5) years. All other provisions of the CBA are to be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after execution. NLRC held that Union still remained as the exclusive bargaining agent with the right to renegotiate, that their failure to enter to negotiation is an ULP. NLRC also found that GMC intereferes with the right of the employees to self-organization. Discrimination claim however is unsupported by substantial evidence. GMC filed its MR, NLRC set aside decision. Union filed a petition for Certiorari before CA. CA set aside NLRC resolution.

Issue: W/N CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in: i. Finding GMC guilty of ULP for violating to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of the employyes to self-organization; and ii. Imposing upon GMC the draft CBA proposed by the Union. Held: i. According to Article 253-A, representation provision of CBA should last for five (5) years. Relationship between Labor and management should be undisturbed until the last sixty (60) days fo the 5th year. Hence, when Union negotiated on 29 November 1991, they are still within the 5-year period. By refusing to negotiate and failing to send a counter-proposal, GMC committed ULP (violate duty to bargain collectively). ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.

ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: (a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.

GMCs failure to reply to the proposal is indicative of its lack of intent to bargain. Such refusal is indicative of bad faith, there is clear evasion of duty to bargain collectively. ii. Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it imposed on GMC, after it had committed unfair labor practice, the draft CBA proposed by the union for the remaining two (2) years of the duration of the original CBA. Fairness, equity, and social justice are best served in this case by sustaining the appellate courts decision on this issue. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party should not be allowed to resort with impunity to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. Thus, by imposing on GMC the provisions of the draft CBA proposed by the union, in our view, the interests of equity and fair play were properly served and both parties regained equal footing, which was lost when GMC thwarted the negotiations for new economic terms of the CBA.