Herald Delivery Carriers Union v. Herald Publication
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns allegations by the Herald Delivery Carriers Union (PAFLU) that Herald Publication, Inc. engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith. Specifically, the union claimed the employer unilaterally contracted out the work of its delivery and carrier workers to independent contractors, affecting their employment and undermining the bargaining relationship. The employer also allegedly failed to respond to the union's bargaining proposals within the statutory timeframe and evaded its duty to bargain collectively through unfulfilled promises. 2. Procedural History: The Herald Delivery Carriers Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Herald Publication, Inc. with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR, in an order dated August 12, 1966, and affirmed by a resolution on December 10, 1966, absolved the respondent employer of the charge of refusal to bargain. The CIR found that while there were claims of indifference and denials, it could not be said that the respondent displayed a strong aversion to meet with the complainant. The CIR attributed the lack of actual negotiation to the parties themselves not being keen on proceeding, presumably because their negotiators were engaged with a sister union. The CIR concluded that the employer should be absolved of the charge of refusal to bargain, despite acknowledging that the duty to bargain existed as the claim of lack of employment relationship was not sustained. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Herald Delivery Carriers Union and Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, seek review of the CIR's decision, arguing that the employer's actions constituted a failure to bargain in good faith, a violation of the Industrial Peace Act. They contend that the employer's unilateral decision to contract out work, affecting thirty-three employees, and its failure to respond to bargaining proposals, despite the CIR's finding that the duty to bargain existed, were clear breaches of statutory duty. The petition asserts that the employer's conduct, particularly the adoption of a new distribution method without consulting the union, disregarded the statutory duty to bargain collectively and the constitutional protection afforded to labor, leading to the termination of employment for the individual petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Herald Publications, Inc. committed an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain in good faith. Whether the adoption of a new method of distribution, contracting out work, justified the refusal to abide by the statutory duty to bargain. Whether the separation of employees due to the new distribution system was lawful, and if not, what remedies are available.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Court of Industrial Relations, finding Herald Publications, Inc. guilty of unfair labor practice for not bargaining in good faith. The respondent was ordered to pay three months' back wages to members of the petitioner-unions who were laid off or separated from the service as a result of such unfair labor practice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to bargain in good faith: The Court found that respondent Herald Publications, Inc. failed to comply with its statutory duty to bargain in good faith. The unilateral contracting out of work affecting 90 delivery and carrier workers, without notice to the union, and the failure to respond to the union's bargaining proposals within the statutory period constituted a violation of Section 14(a) of Republic Act No. 875. The Court emphasized that the duty to bargain collectively requires the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and confer promptly and expeditiously and in good faith, which includes negotiating an agreement and executing a written contract if requested. The Court rejected the respondent's claim that the carriers were independent contractors, stating that this issue did not absolve the company from its duty to bargain. The Court cited numerous cases and legal authorities, including Professor Archibald Cox, to underscore the importance of approaching negotiations with an open mind and making reasonable efforts to reach an agreement, and that stalling or delaying tactics are indicative of bad faith. On the justification for adopting a new distribution method: The Court held that the adoption of a new method of distribution, even if motivated by economy, efficiency, and simplicity, did not justify the refusal to abide by the statutory duty to bargain. The Court stressed that precisely because the new system would result in job losses, the respondent should have taken the matter up with the petitioner labor unions. Citing Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., the Court stated that while management has the final say on operational matters, the labor union should not be completely left out and mutual consultation is necessary. The Court highlighted that the implementation of the scheme resulted in the termination of employment of individual petitioners, which should have been preceded by informing the union, especially in light of the constitutional protection afforded to labor and the express reference to security of tenure in the present Constitution. On the consequences of unfair labor practice and remedies: The Court ruled that an unfair labor practice had been committed, making the separation of the members of the petitioner labor unions from the service contrary to law. Consequently, they would have been entitled to reinstatement. However, the Court took judicial notice that Herald Publications, Inc. had ceased operations as of September 23, 1972, after the declaration of martial law, which barred reinstatement. Nevertheless, the Court held the respondent liable for back wages. Applying the equitable aspects recognized in Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations and Philippine Engineering Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations, the Court ordered the respondent to pay three months' backpay for the workers laid off or separated from the service.
Main Doctrine
An employer commits an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain in good faith with the union, which includes unilaterally contracting out work affecting employees without prior consultation or negotiation, and is liable for back wages to separated employees, even if the employer ceases operations.