PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., v. NLRC Validity of the CBA as the law among the parties Facts: •
•
•
•
•
•
This case involves about 440 retrenched employees of the respondent Planters Product Inc. from its Bataan and Makati-based operations. It was filed by the complainants as individuals and !ointly with their respective unions as a class suit on behalf of Bataan based Planters Products Inc. "#PPI# hereafter$ employees. The intervenors in their behalf and in behalf of similarly situated Makati-based employees moved for leave to intervene because they were similarly similarly situated as the complainants. complainants. The compla complaina inants nts and %ompla %omplaina inants nts-In -Inter terven venors ors were were all re&ula re&ularr employ employees ees of respondent PPI until their respective dates of retirement'retrenchment. The (nions of these former employees of respondent PPI have always had collective bar&ainin& a&reements. a&reements. )n )ctober ** *+, respondent PPI instituted a etirement and Pension Plan "PP# hereafter for brevity$ for all employees which was to be effective retroactive to March /* *+,. )n ebruary / *+,4 PPI to institutionali1e the PP entered into a Trust 2&reement with Philippine Trust %o. Inc. "#PT%# for brevity$ under the terms of which PT% shall administer and mana&e the fund. )n 3eptember , *+,4 a %B2 for *+,4-*+, was si&ned between PPI and the directors and principal officers of its unions.
•
In the said %B2 the provisions in the previous %B2s on #termination allowance# or benefit was modified and limited its scope to separation separation from the service service of PPI by reason solely of disability.
•
)n 3eptember *5 *+,5 without formally informin& the PPI employees-beneficiaries of the PP the PP was unilaterally amended by the company.
•
)n 3eptember 6 *+,5 a circular was issued to all employees of PI announcin& that employees laid off from its Bataan operations on 7uly , and 2u&ust *5 *+,5 were bein& terminated effective as of 3eptember /0 *+,58 while those laid off from its Makati office would be terminated effective as of )ctober *5 *+,5. Between their lay-off dates and their announced termination'retirement dates all of the concerned employees did not render service to PPI.
•
PPI issued to the individual %omplainants'%omplainants%omplainants'%omplainants- Intervenors computer print-outs reflectin& reflectin& the respective respective computations computations of their their separatio separation n benefits benefits for all employee employeess terminated durin& the said periods. It shows that the separation pay &ranted to the Bataan based and Makati-based employees who were not retireable was only one "*$ month of
basic pay for each year of service with one- half paid from the PP and the balance from PPI operatin& funds. 2s shown by the same 9:hibits all employees entitled to optional or forced retirement were &ranted retirement benefits based on their basic pay. These benefits ran&ed from *.0 to *.4/ months of basic pay per year of service as computed in accordance with the PP. These computations were used in payin& the %omplainants and the %omplainants-Intervenors the sums indicated on the print outs. •
•
•
•
The ;uestioned provision in the *+,4-, %ollective Bar&ainin& 2&reement limited the application of the termination allowance only to those separated from the service due to disability. The prior %B2s from *+5 upwards &ranted a termination allowance upon the employee#s separation of at least three "/$ weeks to one "*$ month#s pay for each year of service dependin& upon the total years of service. If the prior %B2 is applied the complainants'complainants-intervenors would be entitled to termination allowance under the %B2 over and above the benefits e:tended under the PP. PPI computed their terminal benefits by considerin& the *+,4-*+, %B2 and the amended PP. The labor arbiter renere !"#$ent a#ainst Planters Pro"cts, Inc., holin# it #"ilt% o& "n&air labor 'ractice b% (ithra(in# the ter$ination allo(ance in the )*+-+ C/A. 3tatin& 2rticle 4, of the
Unfair labor practices of employers, It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the followin& unfair labor practice. ::: ::: ::: "i$ •
To violate a collective bar&ainin& a&reement.
><% affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter.
Iss"es: A.0 1hether or not the )*+-)*+ C/A (as valil% entere into. /.0 1hether or not PPI (as #"ilt% o& "n&air labor 'ractice.
2el:
2.$ ?93.
It is contended that the *+,4-*+, %B2 was not only ne&otiated in bad faith but was also not formally ratified. There was alle&edly bad faith in limitin& the application of the termination allowance as the company already had plans to retrench the workers. 1e a''l% the establishe r"le, that a C/A is the La( a$on# the 'arties, to the )*+-)*+ C/A. /a &aith in the ne#otiations (as not 'resent consierin# that the 'rovision on ter$ination allo(ance (as $ae to a''l% to ever%bo% incl"in# those s"bse3"entl% retrenche or retire a&ter the co$'lainants4 an co$'lainants- intervenors4 retrench$ent. There (as no sin#lin# o"t o& the co$'lainants an intervenors-co$'lainants.
(nder 2rticle /* of the ational 9C )>9 is 9>T99D orderin& Planters Products Inc. under the supervision of the >ational
