GR 168569; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168569; October 5, 2007
San Miguel Foods, Inc., petitioner, vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTWGO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTWGO (the Union), the sole bargaining agent for petitioner San Miguel Foods, Inc.’s (SMFI) monthly paid employees, filed a grievance in November 1992 under the CBA’s grievance machinery. The grievance alleged discrimination and unfair labor practices by Finance Manager Gideon Montesa and sought a review of staff positions and Montesa’s transfer. SMFI proposed a “work management review” to be completed by March 1993. When this was not finished, the Union elevated the grievance. SMFI later rendered a decision stating the review was ongoing, prompting the Union to file a complaint before the Labor Arbiter in October 1993 for unfair labor practice and unjust discrimination in promotion, seeking specific promotions and salary adjustments.
SMFI moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint involved grievance issues under the CBA, which should be resolved through the contractual grievance machinery or voluntary arbitration, not by the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion and remanded the case. The NLRC reversed, ordering proceedings to continue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, holding the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction as SMFI’s alleged violation of the CBA’s seniority rule in promotions constituted unfair labor practice.
ISSUE
Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the Union’s complaint for unfair labor practice.
RULING
Yes, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code includes complaints for unfair labor practice (ULP). SMFI argued the Union’s complaint failed to specify ultimate facts constituting ULP, but technical rules of pleading are not strictly applied in labor proceedings per the NLRC’s New Rules of Procedure. The Court considered the Union’s Position Paper, which detailed SMFI’s alleged violations.
The Union charged SMFI with violating the CBA’s seniority rule in promotions, a provision related to wages and benefits. Under Article 261 of the Labor Code, violations of CBA economic provisions that constitute gross or flagrant unfair labor practice fall within the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction. A liberal construction in favor of labor supports treating the seniority rule as an economic provision. The alleged bypassing of more senior employees for promotion constitutes a gross violation of the CBA, amounting to ULP over which the Labor Arbiter properly exercises jurisdiction. The appellate court’s finding on the seniority rule violation was made solely to determine jurisdiction. The petition was denied.