This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, Octavio cannot claim that the Committee Resolution is not valid, binding and conclusive as to him for being a modification of the CBA in violation of Article 253[25] of the Labor Code. It bears to stress that the said resolution is a product of the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA itself. It was arrived at after the management and the union through their respective representatives conducted negotiations in accordance with the CBA. On the other hand, Octavio never assailed the competence of the grievance committee to take cognizance of his case. Neither did he question the authority or credibility of the union representatives; hence, the latter are deemed to have properly bargained on his behalf since "unions are the agent of its members for the purpose of securing just and fair wages and good working conditions."[26] In fine, it cannot be gainsaid that the Committee Resolution is a modification of the CBA. Rather, it only provides for the proper implementation of the CBA provision respecting salary increases. | |||||