This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The teachers and employees who are Union members were aware of the whole processes. That they can not expect to benefit from the 30% increase in tuition [fee] because the implementation of the increase was only 10% conditioned on their minimum wage. They were a part of the whole machinery of informing the parents and students of the increase in tuition [fee] and the possibility of refund in case the minimum wage is attained by any portion of the 30% increase in tuition fees. They were a party to the public announcement posted on the Bulletin Board. They cannot now claim ignorance of the entire processes because they were parties to the entire processes and helped the respondents convince the parents/students to conditionally pay the increase in tuition fees.[18] Neither can the deadlock in the 1997 CBA negotiations be considered as the proximate cause behind the closure of the school. For sure, it was the tipping point to the cessation of the school's operations, but not the sole and only cause. Jurisprudence dictates that the crucial question whether or not a party has met its statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn from the facts. The effect of an employer's or a union's actions individually is not the test, but the impact of all such occasions or actions considered as a whole.[19] Also, it must be re-emphasized that it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other.[20] Indeed, the duty to bargain "does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession"[21] as failure of the parties to reach an accord is not equivalent to ULP under Article 248(g) for violation of the duty to bargain collectively.[22] The adamant insistence on a bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an impasse does not automatically establish bad faith. It cannot be inferred from a party's insistence to include or exclude a particular substantive provision unless it concerns matters which are trivial or patently tolerable. In such a case, a party has the right to insist on its position to the point of stalemate.[23] | |||||