CASE TITLE: Dole Phils. v.

Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero

FACTS: Petitioner Dole and respondent PAMAO-NFL executed a new Collective

Bargaining Agreement (1996-2001) which stipulates that the company “will grant
free meals to all employees after three hours of actual overtime work.” Some
departments of Dole granted free meals after exactly three hours of overtime
work while other departments granted free meals only after more than three
hours of overtime work. This prompted respondent to file a complaint against
petitioner, averring that petitioner Dole refused to comply with the provisions of
the new Collective Bargaining agreement. After the parties submitted the dispute
to a voluntary arbitrator, it ruled in favor of the respondents. Petitioners sought
for reconsideration but was denied. It filed a petition for review on certiorari with
the CA, but it only upheld the Order.

ISSUE: How many hours of overtime work must an employee render to be

entitled to a free meal?

RULING: The Court ruled that the disputed provision was clear and ambiguous
and that it meant “after exactly three hours”. It concluded by looking at how the
previous CBAs were written – in the 1985-1988 CBA and 1990-1995 CBA, the
phrase used was “after three hours of actual overtime work”. In the supplement
of the 1990-1995 CBA, it became “after more than three house of actual overtime
work.” The phrase “more than” was omitted in the new (1996-2001) CBA which
could only mean that the parties intended that the free meals be given after
exactly three hours of actual overtime work.

DOCTRINE:
The CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner and private respondent and
compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.