FACTS:
The charge arose from the employer, Top Form Manufacturing Philippine’s refusal to grant across-the-board increases to its employees in implementing Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02 of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board of the National Capital Region (RTWPB-NCR). Such refusal was aggravated by the fact that prior to the issuance of said wage orders, the employer allegedly promised at the collective bargaining conferences with Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United Workers of the Philippines (SMTFM) to implement any government-mandated wage increases on an across-the-board basis. However, the provision on wages was retained on the basis of the company’s promise.
Employer asserted that there was no agreement to the effect that future wage increases mandated by the government should be implemented on an across-the-board basis. Otherwise, that agreement would have been incorporated and expressly stipulated in the CBA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer committed an unfair labor practice in its refusal to grant across-the-board wage increases in implementing the Wage Orders as it promised considering it was not expressly stipulated in the CBA.
RULING:
No. To start with, if there was indeed a promise or undertaking on the part of private respondent to obligate itself to grant an automatic across-the-board wage increase, petitioner union should have requested or demanded that such “promise or undertaking” be incorporated in the CBA. After all, petitioner union has the means under the law to compel private respondent to incorporate this specific economic proposal in the CBA. It could have invoked Article 252 of the Labor Code defining “duty to bargain,” thus, the duty includes “executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party.” Petitioner union’s assertion that it had insisted on the incorporation of the same proposal may have a factual basis considering the allegations in the aforementioned joint affidavit of its members. However, Article 252 also states that the duty to bargain “does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or make any concession.” Thus, petitioner union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it finally entered into with private respondent. Moreover, by making such promise, private respondent may not be considered in bad faith or at the very least, resorting to the scheme of feigning to undertake the negotiation proceedings through empty promises.
CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest. It goes without saying, however, that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation.
SunnyAndTheLaw 