Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

3. Sanyo Philippines Workers Union – PSSLU vs.

Canizares, ER: PSSLU is the EBR of employees in Sanyo. The CBA had
G.R. No. 101619 a union security clause and they asked Sanyo to dismiss non-
July 8, 1992 union members. Sanyo dismissed the employees. The case for
Jurisdiction – Labor Arbiter illegal dismissal was filed with LA. PSSLU says that since it’s
an enforcement of a CBA, it should have been submitted to
Doctrine: grievance machinery and then voluntary arbitration. However,
 GR: Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over termination LA took cognizant of the case. Issue is whether or not LA has
cases. Except: cases arising from the interpretation or jurisdiction?
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
and those arising from the interpretation and Facts:
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be PSSLU had an existing CBA with Sanyo, and the CBA
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same contained a union security clause.
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as
may be provided in said agreements PSSLU, through its national president, informed the
 However, for a case to be properly referred to the management of Sanyo that certain employees were notified that
grievance machinery/voluntary arbitration, there has to their membership with PSSLU were cancelled for anti-union
be a grievance between the company and union. activities, economic sabotage, threats, coercion and
 The problem or dispute in the present case is between intimidation, disloyalty and for joining another union.
the union and the company on the one hand and some
The same letter informed Sanyo that the same employees
union and non-union members who were dismissed, on
refused to submit themselves to the union's grievance
the other hand. The dispute has to be settled before an
investigation committee. The employees were members of
impartial body. The grievance machinery with
KAMAO.
members designated by the union and the company
cannot be expected to be impartial against the Then, some officers of KAMAO, executed a pledge of
dismissed employees. Due process demands that the cooperation with PSSLU promising cooperation with the latter
dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an union and among others, respecting, accepting and honoring
impartial body. Since there has already been an actual the CBA between Sanyo
termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter. However, SSLU through its national and local presidents,
wrote another letter to Sanyo recommending the dismissal of in the CBA which needs interpretation or implementation
the following non-union workers allegedly because: they were
engaged and were still engaging in anti- union activities; they The LA then issued anorder suspending the case but asking for
willfully violated the pledge of cooperation with PSSLU which position papers. Then, LA also issued the second questioned
they signed; and they threatened and were still threatening with order which held that it was assuming jurisdiction over the
bodily harm and even death the officers of the union. Also complaint of private respondents, in effect, holding that it had
recommended for dismissal were the following union members jurisdiction over the case.
who allegedly joined, supported and sympathized with a
minority union, KAMAO. PSSLU filed this petition alleging that public respondent Labor
Arbiter cannot assume jurisdiction over the complaint of public
Pursuant to the above letter of the union, the company sent a respondents because it had no jurisdiction over the dispute
memorandum to the same workers advising them that they are subject of said complaint. It is their submission that under
dismissed. Article 217(c) of the Labor Code, in relation to Article 261
thereof, as well as Policy Instruction No. 6 of the Secretary of
The employees then filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal Labor, respondent Arbiter has no jurisdiction and authority to
dismissal. Named respondents were PSSLU and Sanyo. take cognizance of the complaint brought by private
respondents which involves the implementation of the union
PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that security clause of the CBA. The function of the Labor Arbiter
the Labor Arbiter was without jurisdiction over the case, under the same law and rule is to refer this case to the
relying on Article 217 (c) of P.D. 442, as amended by Section 9 grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration.
of Republic Act No. 6715 which provides that cases arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the collective For its part, public respondent, through the Office of the
bargaining agreements shall be disposed of by the labor arbiter Solicitor General, is of the view that a distinction should be
by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary made between a case involving "interpretation or
arbitration implementation of collective bargaining agreement or
"interpretation" or "enforcement" of company personnel
The complainants opposed the motion to dismiss complaint on policies, on the one hand and a case involving termination, on
these grounds: 1) the series of conferences before the NCMB the other hand. It argued that the case at bar does not involve
had been terminated; 2) the NLRC Labor Arbiter had an "interpretation or implementation" of a collective bargaining
jurisdiction over the case which was a termination dispute agreement or "interpretation or enforcement" of company
pursuant to Article 217 (2) of the LC; and 3) there was nothing policies but involves a "termination." Where the dispute is just
in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage, it The procedure introduced in RA 6715 of referring certain
may be referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA grievances originally and exclusively to the grievance
or by voluntary arbitration. Where there was already actual machinery and when not settled at this level, to a panel of
termination, i.e., violation of rights, it is already cognizable by voluntary arbitrators outlined in CBA's does not only include
the Labor Arbiter. grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of
the CBA but applies as well to those arising from the
Issue: Whether or not the LA had jurisdiction implementation of company personnel policies. No other body
shall take cognizance of these cases. The last paragraph of
Held:Yes LA had jurisdiction. Article 261 enjoins other bodies from assuming jurisdiction.

The demand for the dismissal and the actual dismissal by the In the instant case, however, We hold that the Labor
company on any of these grounds is an enforcement of the Arbiter and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in
union security clause in the CBA. This act is authorized by law the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
provided that enforcement should not be characterized by complaints of the private respondents.
arbitrariness.
While it appears that the dismissal of the private respondents
The reference to a Grievance Machinery and Voluntary was made upon the recommendation of PSSLU pursuant to the
Arbitrators for the adjustment or resolution of grievances union security clause provided in the CBA, We are of the
arising from the interpretation or implementation of their CBA opinion that these facts do not come within the phrase
and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of "grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation
company personnel policies is mandatory. The law grants to of (their) Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising
voluntary arbitrators original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the policies," the jurisdiction of which pertains to the Grievance
interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Machinery or thereafter, to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of
Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or voluntary arbitrators.
enforcement of company personnel policies.
In the instant case, both the union and the company are united
All that needs to be done to set the machinery into motion is to or have come to an agreement regarding the dismissal of
call for the convening thereof. If the parties to the CBA had not private respondents. No grievance between them exists which
designated their representatives yet, they should be ordered to could be brought to a grievance machinery. The problem or
do so. dispute in the present case is between the union and the
company on the one hand and some union and non-union
members who were dismissed, on the other hand. The
dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. The
grievance machinery with members designated by the union
and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the
dismissed employees. Due process demands that the dismissed
workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body.
Since there has already been an actual termination, the matter
falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.