Union of Filipro Employees-Drug Food & Allied Ind. Unions – ruling in Nestle Phils. Inc. vs.
le Phils. Inc. vs. NLRC and is therefore not a mandatory
KMU v. Nestle (2006) subject for bargaining. Facts: The Presidents of the Alabang and Cabuyao Divisions of the Union of ISSUE + RULING Filipro Employees Drug, Food and Allied Industries Unions Kilusang Mayo Uno (UFE-DFA-KMU) informed Nestle of their intent to open a Whether the Retirement Plan was not a proper subject to be new CBA negotiation for the year 2001-2004. Nestle acknowledged and included in the CBA negotiations between the parties; hence, non- informed UFE-DFA-KMU that it was preparing its own counter- negotiable No, it was a proper subject to be included in the CBA proposal and proposed ground rules that shall govern the conduct of the negotiations collective bargaining negotiations. Nestle sent another letter, stating - In Nestlé Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC ironically involving the that, unilateral grants, one-time company grants, company-initiated same parties herein, the Court affirmed that a retirement plan is policies and programs, which include, but are not limited to the consensual in nature. Retirement Plan, Incidental Straight Duty Pay and Calling Pay o The company's [Nestlé] contention that its retirement Premium, are by their very nature not proper subjects of CBA plan is non-negotiable, is not well-taken. The NLRC negotiations and therefore shall be excluded therefrom. Nestle, claiming correctly observed that the inclusion of the retirement an impasse in the dialogue requested the NCMB to conduct preventive plan in the collective bargaining agreement as part of mediation proceedings which proved ineffective. UFE-DFA-KMU filed the package of economic benefits extended by the a notice of strike complaining of bargaining deadlock pertaining to company to its employees to provide them a measure of economic issues. Another notice of strike was filed by the UFE-DFA- financial security after they shall have ceased to be KMU on Nestle’s alleged unfair labor practices i.e., bargaining in bad employed in the company, reward their loyalty, boost faith in that it was setting pre-conditions in the ground rules by refusing their morale and efficiency and promote industrial to include the issue of the Retirement Plan in the CBA negotiations. peace, gives "a consensual character" to the plan so that Nestle filed with the DOLE a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction. it may not be terminated or modified at will by either Secretary Sto. Tomas issued an order enjoining any strike or lockout and party. The fact that the retirement plan is non- directed the parties to cease and desist from committing any act that contributory, i.e., that the employees contribute nothing might lead to the further deterioration of the current labor relations to the operation of the plan, does not make it a non- situation and not to meet and convene for the discussion of the union issue in the CBA negotiations…Since the retirement proposals and company counter-proposals before the NCMB. The plan has been an integral part of the CBA since 1972, employee-members of UFE-DFA-KMU at the Cabuyao Plant went on the Union's demand to increase the benefits due the strike which prompted the sec. to issue another order directing the employees under said plan, is a valid CBA issue employees to return to work and Nestle to accept back all returning o Employees do have a vested and demandable right over workers. Despite this the members continued with their strike. Acting existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their DOLE Secretary Arturo Brion, issued an order, stating that present employer. The latter may not unilaterally withdraw, Retirement Plan at the Nestle Cabuyao Plant is a unilateral grant that the eliminate or diminish such benefits (Art. 100, Labor parties have expressly so recognized subsequent to the Supreme Court’s Code) - In the case, the CBA that was about to expire at that time and conditions of the existing agreement during the sixty day contained provisions respecting the Retirement Plan. As the period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. latter benefit was already subject of the existing CBA, the - in demanding that the terms of the Retirement Plan be opened members of UFE-DFA-KMU were only exercising their for renegotiation, the members of UFE-DFA-KMU are acting prerogative to bargain or renegotiate for the improvement of the well within their rights as we have declared that the Retirement terms of the Retirement Plan just like they would for all the Plan is consensual in character; and so, negotiable. other economic, as well as non-economic benefits previously enjoyed by them. - the purpose of collective bargaining is the acquisition or attainment of the best possible covenants or terms relating to economic and non-economic benefits granted by employers and due the employees. The Labor Code has actually imposed as a mutual obligation of both parties, this duty to bargain collectively. The duty to bargain collectively is categorically prescribed by Article 252 of the said code. It states: ART. 252. MEANING OF DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. - The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and confer promptly and expeditiously and 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 grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement if requested by either party, but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. - Article 253, also of the Labor Code, defines the parameter of said obligation when there already exists a CBA. ART. 253. DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WHEN THERE EXISTS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. - The duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that either party shall not terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms