This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-03-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, jurisprudence recognizes the right to exercise management prerogative. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of its business. For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the right of employers.[63] However, the exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.[64] The CBA is the norm of conduct between the parties and, as previously stated, compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[65] | |||||
|
2007-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The CBA during its lifetime binds all the parties. The provisions of the CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions "constitute the law between the parties." Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right to go to court and ask redress.[14] The CBA is the norm of conduct between petitioner and private respondent and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.[15] | |||||