Employer ULP 9: Violation of CBA

It shall be unlawful for an employer to violate a collective bargaining agreement. (Art. 248, Labor Code)

● As for the alleged ULP committed under Article 248(i), for violation of a CBA, this Article is qualified by Article 261 of the Labor Code, the pertinent portion of which latter Article reads:

x x x violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. (San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union, G.R. No. 168569, October 5, 2007)

● ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint should show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely:

1. gross violation of the CBA; and
2. the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA. (San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union)

● This, however, should not be construed to apply to violations of the CBA which can be considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard of the very existence of the CBA itself. (Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs. Bayer Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 162943, December 6, 2010)


Examples:

1. The act of the employer in refusing to implement the negotiated wage increase stipulated in the CBA, which increase is intended to be distinct and separate from any other benefits or privileges that may be forthcoming to the employees, is an unfair labor practice.

2. Refusal for a considerable number of years to give salary adjustments according to the improved salary scales in the CBA is an unfair labor practice.