G.R. No. 170054 ; January 21, 2013
GOYA, INC., Petitioner, vs. GOYA, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Goya, Inc. hired contractual employees from PESO Resources Development Corporation for temporary services in its factory. Respondent Goya, Inc. Employees UnionFFW filed a grievance, arguing this violated the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA’s Section 4, Article I defined only three categories of employees: probationary, regular, and casual. The Union contended that hiring from an external agency circumvented this agreed classification and the union security clause, as it prevented new hires from the casual pool from becoming regular employees and Union members.
The parties submitted the sole issue of whether the Company was guilty of unfair labor practice (ULP) for engaging PESO’s services to Voluntary Arbitrator Bienvenido E. Laguesma. The VA dismissed the ULP charge for lack of factual basis but directed the Company to observe its CBA commitments regarding hiring casual employees. Both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Company committed unfair labor practice by engaging the services of a third-party contractor (PESO) under the existing CBA and applicable laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Company did not commit unfair labor practice. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the CBA and the scope of management prerogative. The CBA provision cited by the Union merely defined employee categories; it did not contain an explicit prohibition against contracting out services or hiring employees through a legitimate independent contractor. The absence of such a restrictive clause means the Company’s action was not a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The Court emphasized that contracting and subcontracting are expressly allowed by law (Department Order No. 18-02) as a legitimate exercise of management prerogative, provided the contractor is independent and the arrangement is not used to circumvent labor laws or the rights of employees. The Union’s claim of ULP was deemed speculative, as it failed to present concrete evidence that the contracting arrangement was designed to interfere with the employees’ right to self-organization or to undermine the Union. The directive for the Company to comply with its CBA commitments pertained to its obligation to hire casuals as defined when necessary, but this did not equate to a finding of ULP for the specific act of engaging PESO.