Scribd
Upload
137 views1 page

St. Lukes Vs Torres-Arbitral Awards

This case discusses a dispute between St. Lukes Medical Center and a labor union over the retroactive effect of a new collective bargaining agreement. The previous CBA had expired, and negotiations between the parties reached an impasse. The Secretary of Labor issued an order containing terms for a new CBA, including retroactive effect back to the expiration date of the previous agreement. St. Lukes argued this violated laws limiting retroactivity. However, the court upheld the Secretary's order, finding the law cited by St. Lukes only applied to negotiated agreements and not arbitral awards, giving the Secretary discretion over the award's effectivity date.

Uploaded by

audy ricardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
137 views1 page

St. Lukes Vs Torres-Arbitral Awards

This case discusses a dispute between St. Lukes Medical Center and a labor union over the retroactive effect of a new collective bargaining agreement. The previous CBA had expired, and negotiations between the parties reached an impasse. The Secretary of Labor issued an order containing terms for a new CBA, including retroactive effect back to the expiration date of the previous agreement. St. Lukes argued this violated laws limiting retroactivity. However, the court upheld the Secretary's order, finding the law cited by St. Lukes only applied to negotiated agreements and not arbitral awards, giving the Secretary discretion over the award's effectivity date.

Uploaded by

audy ricardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc.

vs Torres

G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993

Facts:

Private respondent SLMCEA-AFW brought to the attention of petitioner a letter dated July 4,
1990 that the 1987-1990 was about to expire, and manifested in the process that private respondent
wanted to renew the CBA. This development triggered round-table talks on which occasions
petitioner proposed, among other items, a maximum across-the-board monthly salary increase of
P375.00 per employee, to which proposal private respondent demanded a P1,500.00 hike or 50%
increase based on the latest salary rate of each employee, whichever is higher.

A deadlock on issues, especially that bearing on across-the-board monthly and meal


allowances followed and to pre-empt the impending strike as voted upon by a majority of private
respondent's membership, petitioner lodged the petition below. The Secretary of Labor immediately
assumed jurisdiction and the parties submitted their respective pleadings.

On January 28, 1991, public respondent Secretary of Labor issued the Order now under
challenge. Said Order contained a disposition on both the economic and non-economic issues
raised in the petition. One of the rulings in the order is the granting of the retroactive effect to the
enforceability of the CBA. Petitioner argues that the Order of January 28, 1991 isviolative of Article
253-A of the Labor Code, particularly its provisions on retroactivity. Further, argues that in granting
retroactive effect to the enforceability of the CBA, public respondent committed an act contrary to the
provision of law, pointing out that the old CBA expired on July 30, 1990 and the questioned order
was issued on January 28, 1991. Petitioner theorizes that following Article 13 of the Civil Code which
provides that there are 30 days in one month, the questioned Order of January 28, 1991 was issued
beyond the six-month period.

Private respondent agrees with the Labor Secretary's view that Article 253-A of the Labor
Code does not apply to arbitral awards such as those involved in the instant case. According to
private respondent, Article 253-A of the Labor Code is clear and plain on its face as referring only to
collective bargaining agreements entered into by management and the certified exclusive bargaining
agent of all rank-and-file employees therein within six (6) months from the expiry of the old CBA.

Issue: Whether or not the CBA should be given retroactive effect.

Held: The effectivity of the Order of January 28, 1991, must retroact to the date of the expiration of
the previous CBA, contrary to the position of petitioner. Under the circumstances of the case, Article
253-A cannot be property applied to thiis case. As correctly stated by public respondent in his
assailed Order of April 12, 1991 dismissing petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration —

Anent the alleged lack of basis for the retroactivity provisions awarded, we would
stress that the provision of law invoked by the Hospital, Article 253-A of the Labor
Code, speak of agreements by and between the parties, and not arbitral awards . . .

Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the effectivity of
arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, such
as herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to
determine the effectivity thereof.

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