This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A collective bargaining agreement is "a contract executed upon the request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement."[111] A collective bargaining agreement being a contract, its provisions "constitute the law between the parties"[112] and must be complied with in good faith.[113] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A collective bargaining agreement, as used in Article 252 (now Article 262)[27] of the Labor Code, is a contract executed at the request of either the employer or the employees' exclusive bargaining representative with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions under such agreement.[28] Jurisprudence settles that a CBA is the law between the contracting parties who are obliged under the law to comply with its provisions.[29] | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been observed to constitute a voluntary employer practice that cannot be unilaterally reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer, we find that jurisprudence has not laid down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years. In Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions,[14] the company practice lasted for six years. In Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,[15] the employer, for three years and nine months, approved the commutation to cash of the un enjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of its intermittent workers. In Tiangco v. Leogardo, Jr.,[16] the employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed monthly emergency allowance from November 1976 to February 1980, or three years and four months. In Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,[17] the employer kept the practice of including non-basic benefits such as paid leaves for unused sick leave and vacation in the computation of their 13th-month pay for at least two years. | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is undeniable that going on leave or absenting one's self from work for personal reasons when they have leave benefits available is an employee's right. In Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,[36] the Court acknowledged sick leave benefits as a legitimate economic benefit of an employee, carrying a purpose that is at once legal as it is practical: Sick leave benefits, like other economic benefits stipulated in the CBA such as maternity leave and vacation leave benefits, among others, are by their nature, intended to be replacements for regular income which otherwise would not be earned because an employee is not working during the period of said leaves. They are non-contributory in nature, in the sense that the employees contribute nothing to the operation of the benefits. By their nature, upon agreement of the parties, they are intended to alleviate the economic condition of the workers. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties, it is not, however, an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. As such, it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically, and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it, giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve.[17] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2008-05-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer.[14] The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,"[15] and "to afford labor full protection."[16] Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor." Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. Thus in DavaoFruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, et al.[17]where an employer had freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13th month pay those items that were expressly excluded by the law, we held that the act which was favorable to the employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a practice and could not be withdrawn, reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated. In Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana,[18] we ruled that the employer's act of including non-basic benefits in the computation of the 13th month pay was a voluntary act and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. Meanwhile in Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,[19] the Court ordered the payment of the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed sick leave benefits to its intermittent workers after finding that said workers had received these benefits for almost four years until the grant was stopped due to a different interpretation of the CBA provisions. We held that the employer cannot unilaterally withdraw the existing privilege of commutation or conversion to cash given to said workers, and as also noted that the employer had in fact granted and paid said cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits to some intermittent workers. | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A CBA is "a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement."[18] The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a climate of a sound and stable industrial peace.[19] In construing a CBA, the courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve.[20] | |||||