July 21 Labor Arbitration Lecture Notes

Letran v. Union of Faculty and Admin
-which ULP was accused of LETRAN:
1. Refusal to bargain
2. Termination of Union president as interference on union activities
*sir pointed out to the management prerogative to reschedule the schedule  of the employees. Why considered interference? Taking consideration all factual circumstances (TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST), such as that the employee dismissed is the president of the union and that the said president contested the decisions of the ER as to its refusal to bargain and failure to resolve the issue in a grievance procedure, there is definitely anti-union animus on the part of the school/ER
Lesson which should be learned from LETRAN CASE:
1. Bargain expeditiously, in GF
When the company is suffering economically. It may go either way.
1. Company may retrench employees
2. Employees (in an unorgainzed establishment) may form a union, then have stronger bargaining position with regards financial assistance (separation benefits, other economic assistance to the employees affected). The Union would now go to DOLE, argue that the company is not really losing, but the ER wants to dismiss them in a form of union-busting. To add more pressure, the Union would also file a notice of strike, arguing there was union-busting.
*in the realm of labor relations, it is not merely one sided. Just as the employer may come up with reasons to justify retrenchment, so could the employees by unionizing.
Bargainable Issue in Collective Bargaining Negotiations
-wages, hours of work, all other terms and conditions of employment
Nonbargainable issues
-issues that are not subject to condonation and negotiation, such as the implementation of Wage Orders
Manila Fashions v. NLRC
-wage orders cannot be condoned, not subject to agreement of the parties because it is against public policy to waive it. 
-cannot waive the implementation of the wage order: the employees stand in a less powerful bargaining stance than the employer
Republic Savings Bank v. CIR
-don't you find it odd that a libelous statement was made against the bank officer BUT, in effect, the right procedure was for the officer to proceed to grievance procedure than a criminal proceeding for libel against the said employees?
• NOT ODD: valid expression of grievances of the employees against the management; valid exercise of constitutional right of freedom of expression
• YES ODD: also incumbent upon the Union to subject their issues in a grievance machinery. Procedure they employed is not correct.
-this case is authority to say that CB is a never-ending, ever continuing process, and you see this at work at the grievance procedure!!!
-the body and soul of collective bargaining is the grievance procedure
-Cf Art 260: grievance machinery on implementation and interpretation of CBA and company personnel policies
SIR: Art 260 only speaks of EOJ of voluntary arbitrators (included productivity bonus, wage distortion issues). "Grievance" usually defined as anything at all that has to do with EER. It's that broad, sweeping.
…Art. 260 came into being in 1989. This case was decided in 1967.
-concepts were already floating in the air in the 60s and partially followed or implemented. The doctrine was distilled, found its way to Article 260.
Navarro v. Damasco
-rape case. The "rapist" argued that the matter should have undergone a grievance procedure. Court held that the grievance procedure should cover interpretation and implementation of the CBA procedure and  company personnel policy.  The issue is not a grievable matter, not a work-related incident. Court also held that it is not necessary to undergo grievance procedure, to the prejudice of the poor employee who has to wait for the grievance committee first before undergoing criminal proceeding
Can you now reconcile the holding of the SC in Navarro and Republic Savings Bank?
Republic Savings bank involved or touched upon EER, while the Navarro case did not (private matter).
*but in Navarro case, the employee was dismissed based on the Code of Conduct (which is a company personnel policy). Further, the CBA mentions that any complaint between employees may be subjected to the grievance procedure
DUTY TO BARGAIN