G.R. No. L-21768; August 23, 1966
THE BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., and the BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., petitioners, vs. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and RURAL TRANSIT SHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

On July 9, 1956, Rural Transit Labor Association filed a petition for certification election for employees of Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., operating as “Rural Transit.” The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) later recognized Rural Transit Shop Employees Association as a separate bargaining unit for shop employees. While the certification case was pending, a strike occurred in May 1958, which was certified to the CIR for compulsory arbitration (CIR Case No. 22-IPA). On October 28, 1958, Rural Transit Employees Association filed an amended motion to verify the “money value of the accrued leave paid to the employees from 1946,” which was docketed as CIR Case No. 22-IPA (14). The CIR authorized its Chief Examiner to conduct the verification. On December 21, 1959, after Rural Transit Shop Employees Association was certified as the bargaining representative for shop employees, it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Company. Clause XI of the agreement stated: “All other demands contained in the UNION’S letter, dated October 30, 1959, whether mentioned or not mentioned in this Agreement are hereby withdrawn by the UNION. The parties agree and hereby certify that this present Agreement settles all matters, questions and disputes between them, regardless of whether or not they are mentioned herein.” On January 7, 1960, the Chief Examiner submitted a report showing underpayment of accrued leave to shop employees for the period December 15, 1954, to December 15, 1958. The Union then moved to compel the Company to deposit the underpaid amount. The Company opposed, arguing the claim was waived under Clause XI of the collective bargaining agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the claim for the money value of the accrued leave of the shop employees, pending verification at the time of the collective bargaining agreement, was renounced or waived under Clause XI of that agreement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CIR. The second part of Clause XI, which states that the agreement “settles all matters, questions and disputes between them, regardless of whether or not they are mentioned herein,” necessarily included the pending claim for accrued leaves. This claim was part of the Union’s amended motion of October 28, 1958, and was still pending when the agreement was executed. The first part of Clause XI referred only to demands in the Union’s letter of October 30, 1959, which did not include the accrued leave claim. Interpreting the second part as also referring only to those demands would render it superfluous. The collective agreement aimed to restore industrial peace by settling all previous controversies, and the right to payment of accrued vacation leave is waivable. Therefore, the Union validly renounced the claim under the collective bargaining agreement. The CIR’s order for deposit was unwarranted, and the Union claim was dismissed.