Case No 5

GOYA, INC., v. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW

G.R. No. 170054 || January 21, 2013

Facts:
 Petitioner Goya Inc. (Goya) hired contractual employees from PESO Resources
Development Corporation (PESO).
 This prompted Goya, Inc. Employees Union-FFW (Union) to request for a
grievance conference on the ground that the contractual workers do not
belong to the categories of employees stipulated in their CBA.
 The Union also argued that hiring contractual employees is contrary to the
union security clause embodied in the CBA.

 When the matter remained unresolved, the grievance was referred to the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration.
 The Union argued that Goya is guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP) for gross
violation of the CBA.
 The voluntary arbitrator dismissed the Unions charge of ULP but Goya was
directed to observe and comply with the CBA.

 While the Union moved for partial consideration of the VA decision, Goya
immediately filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals to set aside
the VA’s directive to observe and comply with the CBA commitment pertaining to
the hiring of casual employees.
 Goya argued that hiring contractual employees is a valid management
prerogative.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the act of hiring contractual employees is a valid exercise of
management prerogative?

Ruling:
 No, the act of hiring contractual employees is not a valid exercise of management
prerogative.

 The CA did not commit serious error when it sustained the ruling that the hiring
of contractual employees from PESO was not in keeping with the intent and spirit
of the CBA.
 In this case, a complete and final adjudication of the dispute between the
parties necessarily called for the resolution of the related and incidental issue
of whether the Company still violated the CBA but without being guilty of ULP
as, needless to state, ULP is committed only if there is gross violation of the
agreement.

 Goya kept on harping that both the VA and the CA conceded that its engagement
of contractual workers from PESO was a valid exercise of management
prerogative.

1
  It is confused.
 To emphasize, declaring that a particular act falls within the concept of
management prerogative is significantly different from acknowledging that
such act is a valid exercise thereof.
 What the VA and the CA correctly ruled was that the company’s act of
contracting out/outsourcing is within the purview of management
prerogative.
 Both did not say, however, that such act is a valid exercise thereof.
 Obviously, this is due to the recognition that the CBA provisions agreed upon
by Goya and the Union delimit the free exercise of management prerogative
pertaining to the hiring of contractual employees.

 A collective bargaining agreement is the law between the parties.

 A collective bargaining agreement or CBA refers to the negotiated contract
between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning wages,
hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit.
 As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided these
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
 Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between
the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the
law.

 As repeatedly held, the exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited.

 It is subject to the limitations found in law, collective bargaining agreement
or the general principles of fair play and justice.

 Petition is DENIED.

***SIMPLIFIED FACTS:

Background:
 Goya Inc. hired contractual employees from PESO Resources Development
Corporation (PESO).
 Goya Inc. Employees Union-FFW (Union) raised concerns about the contractual
workers, stating that they don't fit the categories outlined in their Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
 The Union contended that hiring contractual employees goes against the union
security clause in the CBA.
Grievance Resolution:
 As the issue persisted, the matter went to the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration.
 The Union accused Goya of unfair labor practice (ULP) for violating the CBA.
 The voluntary arbitrator dismissed the ULP charge but directed Goya to adhere
to and follow the CBA.

2
Legal Action:
 The Union sought partial reconsideration of the voluntary arbitrator's decision.
 Goya, in response, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, seeking to
overturn the directive to comply with the CBA regarding the hiring of casual
employees.
 Goya argued that hiring contractual employees falls within its valid management
prerogative.
Court of Appeals Decision:
 The Court of Appeals rejected Goya's petition, upholding the voluntary
arbitrator's decision.
 The Court maintained that Goya must observe and comply with the CBA
commitment related to the hiring of casual employees, despite Goya's argument
about management prerogative.