Scribd
Upload
483 views1 page

Meralco v. Quisumbing

This case involves a labor dispute between Meralco Workers Association (MEWA) and MERALCO over the renegotiation of their 1992-1997 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Labor Secretary issued an arbitral award on December 28, 1996 granting retroactivity of the CBA from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. However, MERALCO argued the CBA should only be effective from the date the Labor Secretary resolved the dispute. The Supreme Court ruled that the CBA should be effective for two years from December 28, 1996, the date of the arbitral award, until December 27, 1999 based on the interpretation of Article 253-A.

Uploaded by

Julius Oliver Giron
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
483 views1 page

Meralco v. Quisumbing

This case involves a labor dispute between Meralco Workers Association (MEWA) and MERALCO over the renegotiation of their 1992-1997 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Labor Secretary issued an arbitral award on December 28, 1996 granting retroactivity of the CBA from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. However, MERALCO argued the CBA should only be effective from the date the Labor Secretary resolved the dispute. The Supreme Court ruled that the CBA should be effective for two years from December 28, 1996, the date of the arbitral award, until December 27, 1999 based on the interpretation of Article 253-A.

Uploaded by

Julius Oliver Giron
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MERALCO V. QUISUMBING (Martinez J.

, 1999) FACTS Meralco Workers Association (MEWA) is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of MERALCO. On September 7, 1995, MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to re-negotiate the terms anc conditions of their existing 1992-1997 CBA covering the remaining period of two years starting from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. Due to failure to arrive at terms and conditions acceptable to both parties, the labor dispute was eventually submitted before the Labor Secretary. The Labor Secretary finally granted an arbitral award on December 28, 1996 where it provided for the retroactivity of the CBA from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. MERALCO filed a Petition for Certiorari before the SC arguing that the CBA should become effective on the date when the Labor Secretary resolved the dispute. ISSUE WON retroactivity of arbitral awards shall commence at such time as granted by the Labor Secretary. HELD NO. CBA should be effective for a term of two years counted from December 28, 1996 (the date of the arbitral award of the Labor Secretary) up to December 27, 1999. RATIO Article 253-A serves as the guide in determining when the effectivity of the CBA is to take effect. It provides that the representation aspect of the CBA is to be for a term of 5 years, while x x x [A]ll other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be re-negotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within 6 months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months, the parties shall agree on the duration of the effectivity thereof. x x x. Under these terms, it is clear that the 5-year term requirement is specific to the representation aspect. What the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re-negotiated within 3 years after its execution. It is in this re-negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock. If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution, the law expressly gives the parties - not anybody else - the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. Further, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. Significantly, the law does not specifically cover the situation where 6 months have elapsed but no agreement has been reached with respect to effectivity. In this eventuality, any provision of law should then apply for the law abhors a vacuum. One such provision is the principle of hold over, i.e., that in the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached. In this manner, the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining parties

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy