RFM CORPORATION vs.

KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU
Sec. 3, Art. XVI of each of the CBAs reads:
Section. 3. Special Holidays with Pay The COMPANY agrees to make
payment to all daily paid employees, in respect of any of the days
enumerated hereunto if declared as special holidays by the national
government:
a) Black Saturday; b) November 1; c) December 31
The compensation rate shall be the regular rate.
Dec. 31, 2000, a Sunday was declared as a special holiday.
Respondents claimed payment of their salaries. Petitioner refused,
averring that December 31, 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest
day. Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) declared that the provision of the CBA is
clear. CA affirmed VA.
Petitioner: The CBA was intended to protect the employees from
reduction of their take-home pay, hence, it was not meant to remunerate
them on Sundays, which are rest days, nor to increase their salaries.
ISSUE: Whether RFM should pay the salaries of Dec. 31
RULING: YES. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon
the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning thereof shall
prevail. As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular
salaries on the holidays, regardless of whether they fall on rest days.
The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to
comply with its provisions.
NEW PACIFIC TIMBER vs. NLRC
NFL (bargaining unit of New Pacific) started to negotiate for better terms
for the employees in the bargaining unit. However, the petitioner resisted
so NFL was prompted to file a complaint for ULP on the ground of
refusal to bargain collectively.
Labor Arbiter issued an order declaring petitioner guilty of ULP, NLRC
affirmed Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter then order directing petitioner to pay

the 142 employees entitled to the benefits. Petitioner complied; and the
corresponding quitclaims were executed.
However, Petition for Relief was filed in behalf of 186 of the private
respondents. They claimed that they were excluded from enjoying the
benefits under the CBA since the agreement with NFL and petitioner
limited the CBA's implementation to only the 142 rank-and-file
employees enumerated. The appeal is granted and the Order of the
Labor arbiter is set aside and vacated.
Petitioner: Private respondents are not entitled to the benefits because
employees hired after the term of a CBA are not parties to the
agreement, even if they subsequently become members of the
bargaining unit.
Article 253 of the Labor Code refers to the continuation in full force and
effect of the previous CBA's terms and conditions. By necessity, it could
not possibly refers to terms and conditions which, as expressly
stipulated, ceased to have force and effect.
ISSUE: 1. Are the new employees entitled to the benefits? (2. Can a
CBA be extended beyond period stipulated?)
RULING: 1. YES when a CBA is entered into by the union representing
the employees and the employer, even the non-member employees are
entitled to the benefits of the contract. To exclude them would constitute
undue discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would
be entitled to under a new CBA to which they would have been parties.
In this case, no new agreement had been entered into after the CBAs
stipulated term, it is only fair that the employees hired after be included
in the existing CBA. This is in consonance with our ruling that the terms
and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement continue to have
force and effect even beyond the stipulated term when no new
agreement is executed by and between the parties to avoid or prevent
the situation where no collective bargaining agreement at all would
govern between the employer company and its employees.
(2.YES. Under Art 253, it is clear that until a new CBA has been
executed by and between the parties, they are duty-bound to keep the
status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and

conditions of the existing agreement. The law does not provide for any
exception nor qualification as to which of the economic provisions of the
existing agreement are to retain force and effect, therefore, it must be
understood as encompassing all the terms and conditions in the said
agreement. In this case, no new agreement was entered into by and
between petitioner Company and NFL pending appeal of the decision in
NLRC; nor were any of the economic provisions and/or terms and
conditions pertaining to monetary benefits in the existing agreement
modified or altered. Therefore, the existing CBA in its entirety, continues
to have legal effect.)
TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. NLRC
CBA was executed between TDI and TDLU. It also contained a union
security clause which provides:
All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this
Contract, become members of the Union in accordance
with its Constitution and By-Laws shall, as a condition of
their continued employment, maintain membership in
good standing in the Union for the duration of the
agreement.
While the CBA was in effect the respondents joined another union,
KAMPIL and organized its local chapter in TDI. KAMPIL filed a petition
for certification election, which compelled TDI to file a grievance with
TDLU. TDLU, after investigations expelled the respondents from TDLU
for disloyalty. TDLU notified TDI that private respondents had been
expelled from TDLU and demanded that TDI terminate the employment
of private respondents because they had lost their membership. TDI
agreed. The private respondents then filed with the MOLE a complaint
for illegal dismissal against TDI.
Previously, however, the Med-Arbiter granted KAMPILs petition for
certification election. The Med-Arbiter's Order stated, that the existence
of an uncertified CBA cannot be availed of as a bar to the holding of a
certification election. On appeal of TDI and TDLU to the BLR, the order
for the holding of a certification election was reversed and set aside.
Kampil filed a MR whereby BLR granted, because CBA has now expired,
there appears to be no more obstacle in allowing a certification election.

Labor Arbiter denied TDI's application to terminate the private

respondents. NLRC affirmed.
Petitioner: The CBA is valid and binding not only on TDI and TDLU but
likewise on private respondents who have ratified the same in their
individual capacities as members of TDLU; hence, the union security
clause is valid and binding on them.
ISSUE: whether TDI is guilty of ULP.
RULING: NO. The dismissal of an employee pursuant to a demand of
the majority union in accordance with a union security agreement
following the loss of seniority rights is valid and privileged and does not
constitute an ULP. Article 249 of the LC recognizes the closed shop
arrangement as a form of union security. The closed shop, etc, are valid
forms of union security and strength. They do not constitute ULP.
Having ratified that CBA and being then members, are required under
the Union Security Clause to maintain their membership in good
standing with it during the term thereof, a requirement which ceases to
be binding only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding
the expiration of the CBA. When the private respondents organized and
joined the KAMPIL Chapter in TDI and filed the corresponding petition
for certification election in there was no freedom period to speak of yet.
HACIENDA FATIMA vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE
WORKERS -FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE
When the union was certified as the collective bargaining representative
in the certification elections, respondents under the pretext that the result
was on appeal, refused to sit down with the union for the purpose of
entering into a CBA. The workers including the union were not given
work for more than one month. The union staged a strike which was
settled upon the signing of a MOA:
'a)

The parties will meet for CBA negotiations within 30 days. xxx

However, respondents defaulted on its commitment to bargain

collectively. Instead, it employed all means including the use of private
armed guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.

Respondents did not any more give work assignments forcing the union
to stage a strike. But due to the conciliation another MOA was signed
which provides:
'Whereas the union staged a strike against management grounded on
the dismissal of the union officials and members; xxx
Petitioner: respondents are 'refusing to work and being choosy in the
kind of work they have to perform.
ISSUE: ULP by Hacienda?
RULING: YES. From respondents' refusal to bargain, to their acts of
economic inducements resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew
from the union, the use of armed guards to prevent the organizers to
come in, and the dismissal of union officials and members, respondents
did not want a union in their haciendaa clear interference in the right of
the workers to self-organization.