Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC V SMC EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and

chnicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining

OCT 5 2007 | CARPIO-MORALES, J in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto.
 Sec 1 Rule 8 ROC should not be strictly applied to a case filed before LA so in
FACTS determining jurisdiction over a case, allegations made in the complaint as well as
UNION was the SEBA of all the monthly paid employees of SMFI those in the position paper may be considered
 Some employees of SMFI’s Financial Department, through the UNION, brought a
grievance against Financial Manager MONTESA for discrimination, favoritism, IN POSITION PAPER
unfair labor practices, not flexible, harassment, promoting divisiveness and  Complaint for ULP pursuant to Art 248 (e) and (i) of Labor Code
sectarianism, etc before SMFI Plant Operations Manager in accordance with o (e) – discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms of
Step 1 of the grievance machinery in CBA conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in
 UNION sought the 1. Review, evaluation & upgrading of all Financial staff and 2. any labor organization
Promotion of GQ MONTESA to other SMC affiliates & subsidiaries o (i) to violate CBA
 GRIEVANCE MEETING (JAN 14 1993): SMFI informed UNION that it planned to  large scale and wanton unjust discrimination in matters of promotion (of following
address the grievance through a “work management review” which would be members: VENTURA, GERONIMO, CRUZ, CALASIN, PERALTA, ALANO,
completed by MAR 1993 so it asked the finance personnel to give it their attention MORALEDA all assigned with the Finance Department)
and cooperation  gross and blatant violations by SMFI of Sec 5 Art III (Job Security) and Sec 4 Art
o The work management review was not completed by MAR 1993, UNION VIII (Grievance Machinery) of CBA
elevated the grievance to Step 2 on MAR 26 1993
 Almost 9 months after the grievance meeting was held (OCT 6 1993), SMFI 2. WON SMFI’s violation of the CBA constitutes unfair labor practice? YES – JOB
rendered a decision on Step 1 Grievance stating that it was still in the process of SECURITY PROVISION ON SENIORITY RULE
completing the work management review [UNION’s request could not be ON PROMOTIONS
granted] COURT: Union did not allege that they were done to encourage or discourage
membership in a labor organization – in fact, those promoted were members of UNION
UNION filed a complaint before NLRC against SMFI for unfair labor practice and [PROMOTION DO NOT AMOUNT TO ULP]
unjust discrimination in matters of promotion praying that SMFI et al be ordered to
promote named employees with corresponding pay increases or adjustment including ON VIOLATION OF CBA
payment of salary differentials and attorney’s fees and to cease and desist from GRIEVANCE MACHINERY PROVISION
committing the same unjust discrimination in matters of promotion Art 248(i) for violation of CBA is qualified by Art 261 – violations of CBA, except those
 SMFI: Filed a motion to dismiss contending that the issues raised were grievance which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as ULP and shall be resolved
issues and should be resolved in the grievance machinery in CBA or in mandated as grievances under CBA (gross violation of CBA shall mean flagrant and/or malicious
provision of voluntary arbitration refusal to comply with economic provisions of such agreement)
 LA: Granted SMFI’s MTD – ordered remand of case to grievance machinery for
completion of the proceedings IN CASE AT BAR, Allegations of UNION in its Position Paper charges SMFI to have
 NLRC: Appeal/MR by UNION granted – ordered LA to continue proceedings violated the grievance machinery provisions in CBA [not economic provision HENCE
 CA: Denied SMFI’s petition for certiorari – LA has jurisdiction over the complaint requirement for LA to exercise jurisdiction of a ULP is not present]
of UNION because SMFI violated the seniority rule under CBA by appointing and
promoting certain employees which amounted to a ULP JOB SECURITY PROVISION
UNION: SMFI appointed less senior employees to positions as its Finance Department,
ISSUES consequently intentionally by-passing more senior employees who are deserving of
1. WON LA has jurisdiction over the complaint of UNION? YES said appointment
Art 217 Labor Code – jurisdiction of LA includes complaints for ULP
SMFI’S ARGUMENTS: Allegations in UNION’s complaint filed before LA do not Art 4 Labor Code – all doubts in implementation and interpretation of the provisions
establish a cause of action for ULP, the UNION having merely contended that SMFI the Code, including IRR shall be resolved in favor of labor
was guilty thereof without specifying the ultimate facts upon which it is based [Sec 1 IN CASE AT BAR, since seniority rule in the promotion of employees has a bearing on
Rule 8 ROC] salary and benefits, it may, following a liberal construction of Art 261 of the Labor Code,
COURT: Particular acts of ULP alleged to have been committed by SMFI were not be considered an economic provision of CBA
specified; neither were the ultimate facts in support thereof  Charge of promoting less senior employees thus bypassing others who are more
 HOWEVER, the union detailed the particular acts of ULP attributed to SMFI and senior and equally and more qualified is a gross and flagrant violation of the
the ultimate facts in support thereof seniority rule under CBA, a ULP over which LA has jurisdiction
 Sec 7 Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of NLRC - The proceedings before
the Labor Arbiter shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of WHEREFORE, PETITION DENIED