This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| UIC argues that the Secretary gravely abused his discretion because at the time he ordered the creation of the tripartite committee, the parties had already signed — but not yet ratified - - the final draft of the CBA, which contains grievance mechanism provisions. UIC posits that the grievance procedure in the signed CBA should apply insofar as the determination of the net incremental proceeds is concerned. In support of its contention, UIC cites University of San Agustin Employees' Union — FFW v. Court of Appeals,[29] where we held that the grievance machinery embodied in the CBA must be recognized and enforced by the Secretary. In response, the Union asserts that UIC itself had rejected and disregarded the execution and efficacy of the CBA and, thus, cannot rely on the grievance machinery contained in the same CBA. | |||||