Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services (petitioner-company) and respondent Association of Trade Unions (ATU-TUCP) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on October 16, 1985, and renewed on April 15, 1989. Both CBAs provided for sick leave with pay benefits under Article VIII, Sections 1 and 3, for regular non-intermittent workers and intermittent field workers, respectively. During the effectivity of the 1985 CBA until three months after its renewal in 1989, intermittent workers who rendered at least 750 hours were paid the cash equivalent of their unenjoyed sick leave benefits. This practice was discontinued by petitioner-company under a new assistant manager, who claimed intermittent workers were not entitled to such commutation based on Sections 1 and 3 of the 1989 CBA. Procedural History: The Union objected to the discontinuance, asserting it deviated from the CBA's intent, violated labor law principles, and discriminated against intermittent workers. Upon failure to settle amicably, the Union filed a complaint for enforcement of the CBA with a Voluntary Arbitrator. The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, directing the petitioner-company to grant the commutation of unenjoyed sick leave benefits to intermittent workers. The Petition: Petitioner-company filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA clearly excluded intermittent workers from the commutation benefit and that past payments were due to a misinterpretation that could be rectified.
Issue(s)
Whether the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the commutation of unenjoyed sick leave benefits to intermittent workers. Whether the last sentence of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA, which states that only regular workers whose work are not intermittent are entitled to the sick leave privilege, excludes intermittent workers from the commutation of unenjoyed sick leave benefits. Whether the past practice of commuting unenjoyed sick leave benefits to intermittent workers, which ripened into company policy, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the petitioner-company.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The award of the Voluntary Arbitrator dated September 10, 1991, is affirmed. The petitioner-company is directed to grant and extend the privilege of commutation of the unenjoyed portion of sick leave with pay benefits to its intermittent field workers from the time it was discontinued and henceforth.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Voluntary Arbitrator: The objection to the Voluntary Arbitrator's authority is misplaced. Article 261 of the Labor Code grants Voluntary Arbitrators the power to hear and decide unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The directive to commute sick leave benefits was a necessary consequence of the Arbitrator's exercise of this power. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the public respondent in issuing the award. On the interpretation of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA: It is erroneous to isolate Section 1 from Section 3 of Article VIII of the 1989 CBA. The CBA provides for sick leave benefits for two distinct classes of workers: regular non-intermittent workers under Section 1 and intermittent field workers under Section 3. The phrase "herein sick leave privilege" in the last sentence of Section 1 refers to the fixed 15-day sick leave with pay, which only non-intermittent workers are entitled to. This is distinct from the variable number of sick leave days for intermittent workers under Section 3, depending on hours rendered. A practical and realistic construction of the CBA provisions, giving efficacy to the agreement, supports the interpretation that intermittent workers are not excluded from the commutation of their unenjoyed sick leave benefits if qualified. On the nature of sick leave benefits and company practice: Sick leave benefits, like other economic benefits in a CBA, are intended to replace regular income lost due to absence from work and are meant to alleviate the economic condition of workers. The petitioner-company's past practice of commuting unenjoyed sick leave benefits to intermittent workers from October 16, 1985, until July 1989, clearly established this privilege. This practice, having been recognized and acted upon for a significant period, ripened into company policy. Well-settled jurisprudence dictates that such existing benefits, once established as company practice, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn or diminished by the employer. The argument that past payments were due to misinterpretation and could be rectified is unmeritorious, as the established practice cannot be peremptorily withdrawn.
Main Doctrine
A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is impressed with public interest and must be construed liberally, not narrowly or technically. Benefits already extended under a CBA, which have ripened into company practice, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn or diminished. The Voluntary Arbitrator has the authority to interpret and implement the CBA, and their decision will not be overturned absent grave abuse of discretion.