GR 156260; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156260 . March 10, 2005
BABCOCK-HITACHI (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, vs. BABCOCK-HITACHI (PHILS.), INC., MAKATI EMPLOYEES UNION (BHPIMEU), Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Babcock-Hitachi (Phils.), Inc., a manufacturing corporation, planned to transfer its Design Department from Makati to its Bauan, Batangas plant. Consequently, on February 24, 1999, it notified three Engineer 1 employees of their permanent reassignment to Bauan effective April 1, 1999. The affected employees, union members, claimed a relocation allowance pursuant to Article XXI of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which provided a specific amount for employees transferred from Makati to Bauan.
Petitioner refused payment, invoking its internal Policy Statement No. BHPI-G-044A, which stated that employees who are residents of Bauan or adjacent towns and are assigned permanently back to the Bauan Plant are not entitled to relocation allowance. The union filed a complaint, and the parties submitted the case to voluntary arbitration.
ISSUE
Whether the affected union members are entitled to the relocation allowance stipulated in the CBA, notwithstanding the company’s internal policy that would disqualify them.
RULING
Yes, the employees are entitled to the allowance. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Voluntary Arbitrator and the Court of Appeals. The CBA, as a contract between the company and the union, is the law between the parties. The pertinent CBA provision on relocation allowance is clear and unequivocal, granting the benefit to employees transferred from Makati to Bauan without any qualification based on the employee’s residence.
The company’s internal policy statement, being a unilateral issuance, cannot override the mutually agreed terms of the CBA. Since the policy was not incorporated into the CBA, it cannot be used to diminish the benefits expressly granted therein. Furthermore, in line with the principle of construing doubts in labor contracts in favor of labor, any ambiguity between the broad CBA grant and the restrictive policy must be resolved to uphold the workers’ welfare. Therefore, petitioner was ordered to pay the claimed relocation allowances. The petition was denied.