1. San Miguel Corp underwent restructuring in 1991, spinning off its Magnolia and Feeds divisions into separate corporations.
2. During CBA negotiations in 1992, the union argued the bargaining unit should include employees of all three companies, while the companies argued it should only include SMC employees.
3. The court ruled that the spun-off companies had separate legal identities, so their employees could not be in the same bargaining unit as SMC. It also upheld a three-year term for the renegotiated CBA.
1. San Miguel Corp underwent restructuring in 1991, spinning off its Magnolia and Feeds divisions into separate corporations.
2. During CBA negotiations in 1992, the union argued the bargaining unit should include employees of all three companies, while the companies argued it should only include SMC employees.
3. The court ruled that the spun-off companies had separate legal identities, so their employees could not be in the same bargaining unit as SMC. It also upheld a three-year term for the renegotiated CBA.
1. San Miguel Corp underwent restructuring in 1991, spinning off its Magnolia and Feeds divisions into separate corporations.
2. During CBA negotiations in 1992, the union argued the bargaining unit should include employees of all three companies, while the companies argued it should only include SMC employees.
3. The court ruled that the spun-off companies had separate legal identities, so their employees could not be in the same bargaining unit as SMC. It also upheld a three-year term for the renegotiated CBA.
1. San Miguel Corp underwent restructuring in 1991, spinning off its Magnolia and Feeds divisions into separate corporations.
2. During CBA negotiations in 1992, the union argued the bargaining unit should include employees of all three companies, while the companies argued it should only include SMC employees.
3. The court ruled that the spun-off companies had separate legal identities, so their employees could not be in the same bargaining unit as SMC. It also upheld a three-year term for the renegotiated CBA.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
65.
San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO, etc. vs Confesor, San Miguel
Corporation, Magnolia Corp. and San Miguel Foofd, Inc. Sept. 19, 1996 FACTS: On June 28, 1990, petitioner-union SMC Union-PTGWO concluded a CBA with SMC to take effect upon the expiration of the Previous CBA on June 30, 1989. This CBA provided that the agreement shall remain in force until June 30, 1992, but that in accordance with Article 253-A of the labor Code as amended. The terms of the agreement, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, shall b e for 5 yrs from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 1994. In keeping with its vision and strategy for business expansion, SMC management informed its employees in a letter dated August 13, 1991 that the company will undergo restructuring. Effective October 1, 1991, the Magnolia and the Feeds and Livestock Division were spun-off and became two distinct corporations. Notwithstanding the spin-offs, the CBA in force and the effect. As a result of spin-offs: 1. Each of the companies are run by, supervised and controlled by different management teams including separate human resource/ personnel managers. 2. Each company enforces its own administrative and operational rules and policies and are not dependent on each other in their operations. 3. Each entity maintains separate financial statements and are audited separately from each other. The CBA negotiation started in July 1992. During the negotiations, the petitioner-union insisted that the bargaining unit of SMC should still include the employees of the spun-off corporations, Magnolia and SMFI, and the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be effective only for the remaining two years is until June 30, 1994. SMC, on the other hand, contended that the members/employees who had moved to Magnolia and SMFI automatically ceased to be part of the bargaining iunit at the SMC, and that, the CBA should be effective three years in accordance with Articke 253-A of the LAbor Code. ISSUES: 1. WON the duration of the renegotiated terms of the CBA is three yrs or two; and 2. WON the bargaining unit of the SMCincludes also employees of Magnolia and SMFI. Pertinent to the first issue is Art. 253-A of the LC, as amended. The supreme court quoting a book, defines the two classes of CBA provisions.
The representation aspect refers to the identity and majority status of the union and the negotiated CBA as the excusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned. All other provisions simply refers to the rest of the CBA, economic as well non-economic provisions, other than representational. Then the court explains the three and five yr term.
RULING: 1. Obviously, the framers of the law wanted to maintain industrial peace and stability having both the management and the labor work harmoniously together without any disturbance. Thus no outside union can enter the establishment within 5 years and challenge the status of the incumbent union as the exclusive bargaining agent. Likewise, the terms and conditions of employment (economic and non-economic) cannot be questioned by the employers and employees during the period of the effectivity of the CBA. The CBA is in contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and conditions of the agreement. Notably, the framers of the law did not give the fixed terms and conditions of employment. It can be gleaned frm their discussions that it was left to the parties to fix the period. The issue as to the non-representation provisions of the CBA need not be labored especially when we take note of the Memorandum of the Sec. of Labor dated Feb 24, 1994. In the said memorandum, the Sec of LAbor had the occasion to clarify the term of the renegotiated terms of the CBA vis--vis the term of the bargaining agent, to wit: As a matter of policy the parties are encouraged to enter into a renegotiated CBA with a term which would coincide with the aforesaid 5 yr term of the bargaining representative. In the event however that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract with the term of 3 yrs or one which does not coincide with the said 5 yr term, and the said agreement is ratified by the said majority members in the bargaining unit, the subject contract is valid and legal and therefore, binds the contracting parties. The same will however not adversely affect the right of another union to challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within 60 days before the lapse of the original 5 yr term of the CBA. Thus, we do not find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sec of LAbor in the ruling that the effcectivity of the renegotiated terms of the CBA shall be for 3 years. 2. Magnolia and SMFI became distict entities with separate juridical personalities. Thus, they cannot belong to a single bargaining unit as held in the case of Diagton vs Ople.
Petitioner-unions attempt to include the employees of
Magnolia and SMFI in the SMC bargaining unit so as to have a bigger mass base of employees has, therefore, no more valid ground. Moreover, in determining an appropriate bargaining unit, the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests. The employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions evidenced by the type of work they performed. Considering the spin-offs, the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment. Interests of employees in different companies perforce differ. SMC is engaged in the business of beer manufacturing. Magnolia is involved in the manufacturing and processing products while the SMFI is involved in the production of feeds and processing of chicken. The nature of their products and scale of their businedd may require different compensation packages. The different companies may have different volumes of work and different working conditions. For such reason, the employees of the different companies see the need to group themselves together to organize themselves into distinct and organize groups. It would then be best to have separate bargaining units for different companies where employees can bargain separately according to their needs and according to their own working conditions.
