G.R. No. L-10393; March 30, 1960
BAY VIEW HOTEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION, petitioner, vs. BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner Bay View Hotel Employees’ Union and the respondent Bay View Hotel, Inc. entered into a working agreement on June 9, 1954, recognizing the union as the sole collective bargaining agency and establishing a Labor Management Committee to settle disputes. On February 18, 1955, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the hotel and its officers. The complaint alleged two main violations: (1) Discrimination under Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act No. 875 for acts against union president Antonio V. Policarpio and six security guards (Raymundo de la Cruz, Moises Montoya, Ubaldo Luna, Nicasio Aquino, Timoteo Manalo, and Toribio Macapagal). Specifically, Policarpio was allegedly required to turn over his work to new hires and then told to just sit at his desk, while the six guards were demoted to linen, room, and elevator boys, losing coffee allowances and insurance benefits. (2) Refusal to bargain collectively in good faith under Section 4(a)(6) in relation to Section 13 of R.A. 875, for the management’s refusal to comply with a unanimous Labor Management Committee recommendation on a four-point grievance submitted by the union, which led to a strike notice and an actual strike.
The respondents countered that Policarpio was reassigned to office work due to inefficiency, tardiness, and poor performance, not discharged. The reassignment of the six security guards was due to their lax vigilance, which resulted in missing hotel property (eight table radios). They denied refusing to bargain, asserting they acted per the agreement and retained the right to approve or disapprove the Committee’s decisions. After a hearing, the CIR absolved the respondents of all charges. The union’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc (with one dissent), prompting this appeal by certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the reassignment of union president Policarpio and the six security guards constituted discrimination or unjustified demotion in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and R.A. 875.
2. Whether the management’s refusal to implement the Labor Management Committee’s unanimous recommendation on the union’s four-point grievance constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations, absolving the respondents.
1. On the issue of discrimination/demotion: The Court found no unjustified demotion or undue discrimination in the reassignments. The working agreement vested in the employer the right to supervise, control, and rotate employees, including transfer between positions, provided it did not amount to unjustified demotion or undue discrimination. Regarding Policarpio, the CIR’s factual finding that his transfer was due to inefficiency and tardiness—valid causes under the agreement—was upheld. The union’s imputations of anti-union attitude were unsubstantiated. Regarding the six security guards, the Court upheld the CIR’s finding that their salaries were not decreased and there was no indication their transfer was motivated by union affiliation or activities. The anti-union charge was belied by the management’s voluntary entry into the working agreement with the union.
2. On the issue of refusal to bargain collectively: The Court ruled that the management’s non-approval of the Labor Management Committee’s recommendation did not constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith or a violation of the agreement. The collective bargaining agreement stipulated that the Committee’s function was to “discuss” and “settle” differences, and its decisions were “recommendatory” to the management. The agreement did not make the Committee’s decisions binding or automatic. Therefore, the employer retained the right to approve or disapprove the recommendations. The union’s failure to pursue further grievance steps outlined in the agreement after the management’s disapproval precluded a finding of unfair labor practice.
The Court also rejected the union’s procedural arguments, finding that the CIR decision was based on all pleadings and evidence, not merely the trial examiner’s report, and that the proceedings satisfied due process requirements. The decision was affirmed without costs.