Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Case Name: General Miling Corp. v.

CA  LA: Dismissed the case with the recommendation that a petition


Topic: Collective Bargaining Author: Yron Quiroz for certification election be held to determine if the union still
Doctrine: When the employer violates its duty to bargain collectively, it enjoyed the support of the workers.
loses its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and  NLRC: Set aside the labor arbiter’s decision and ordered GMC to
conditions of the proposed/draft/new CBA. abide by the proposed CBA of the Union. Also held that it was
Facts: unfair labor practice for GMC not to enter into negotiation with
 All the employees of GMC in its two plants are members of the the Union.
General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union which is  NLRC reversed itself upon MR of GMC. It found GMC’s doubts as
also the duly certified bargaining agent. to the status of the Union justified and that the allegation of
 GMC and the Union concluded a CBA which included the issue of coercion exerted by GMC on the union’s members to resign is
representation effective for a term of 3 years and retroactive to unfounded.
December 1, 1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.  CA: Set aside the NLRC’s final decision. Reinstated the NLRC’s
 On November 29, 1991 or a day before the expiration of the CBA, earlier decision.
the Union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a Issues:
counter-proposal be submitted within 10 days. A. Did GMC interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization?
 However, GMC had received letters from workers who stated that B. Did the CA gravely abused its discretion when it imposed on GMC
they had withdrawn from their union membership on grounds of the draft CBA proposed by the Union for 2 years commencing from
religious affiliation and personal differences. the expiration of the original CBA?
 Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, Held/Ratio:
GMC did not send any counter-proposal. FIRST ISSUE: YES. GMC interfered with the employees’ right to self-
 December 16, 1991: GMC wrote a letter to the Union’s officers, organization.
Rito Mangubat and Victor Lastimoso. The letter stated that it felt  The letters made by 13 union members signifying their resignation
there was no basis to negotiate with a union which no longer from the Union clearly indicated that GMC exerted pressure on its
existed, but that they were still always willing to dialogue with employees.
them on matters of common concern and on suggestions on how ^The records show that GMC presented these letters to prove that
the company may improve its operations. the Union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers. The fact
 The Union officers wrote a letter to GMC disclaiming any massive that the resignations of the union members occurred during the
disaffiliation or resignation of members from the union. They also pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s
submitted a manifesto signed by its members stating that they had desperate attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the
not withdrawn from the union. Union.
^The ill-timed letters of resignation from the union members
 GMC dismissed Marcia Tumbiga, a union member, on the ground
of incompetence. indicate that GMC had interfered with the right of its employees to
self-organization.
 The Union protested and requested GMC to submit the matter to
SECOND ISSUE: NO. The CA did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
the grievance procedure provided in the CBA.
imposed on GMC the proposed CBA made by the Union.
 GMC advised the union to refer to their Dec. 16 letter.
 GENERAL RULE: When a CBA already exists, its provisions shall
 The Union filed a complaint against GMC with the NLRC for unfair
continue to govern the relationship between the parties until a
labor practice.
new one is agreed upon. The rule necessarily presupposes that all
other things are equal and that neither party is guilty of bad faith.
 EXCEPTION: However, when one of the parties abuses this grace
period by purposely delaying the bargaining process (bad faith), a
departure from the general rule is warranted.
 Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively,
it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms
and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union.
 We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the
old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent
negotiations.
 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.