Kiok Loy v. NLRC

Kiok Loy v. NLRC 141 SCRA 179 (1986)

Doctrine: Unfair labor practice is committed when it is shown that the respondent employer, after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by the petitioning Union, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal.

Facts:

·         The Pambansang Kilusang Paggawa, a legitimate late labor federation, won and was subsequently certified in a resolution by the Bureau of Labor Relations as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Sweden Ice Cream Plant.

·         The Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed collective bargaining agreement. At the same time, it requested the Company for its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored and remained unacted upon by the Company.

·         Thereafter, the Union filed a "Notice of Strike", with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unresolved economic issues in collective bargaining.

·         Conciliation proceedings then followed during the thirty-day statutory cooling-off period. But all attempts towards an amicable settlement failed.

·         The case was brought to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 823, as amended. But the Company requested for a lot of postponements. NLRC ruled that respondent Sweden Ice Cream is guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain, in violation of Section (g) Article 248 (now Article 249), of P.D. 442, as amended.  

Issue: Whether the Company is guilty of unfair labor practice for refusal to bargain

Held: Yes. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

·         Collective bargaining is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation.

·         Article 249, par. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement, if requested by either party.

·         The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present, namely,

o   (1) possession of the status of majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code;

o   (2) proof of majority representation; and

o   (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code.

·         A Company's refusal to make counter proposal if considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may indicate bad faith since the Union's request for a counter proposal is left unanswered. Besides, petitioner Company's approach and attitude-stalling the negotiation by a series of postponements, non-appearance at the hearing conducted, and undue delay in submitting its financial statements, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the Union.