FAMILY CASE STUDY

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

[G.R. No. 198783. April 15, 2013.]

ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION,

petitioner

. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS

PHILIPPINES, INC.-CEBU PLANT,

respondent

DECISION

MENDOZA,

Assailed in this petition is the May 24, 2011 Decision 1 and the September 2, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Court of

Appeals

(CA)

in CA-G.R. SP No. 05200,

entitled Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant v. Royal Plant

Workers Union

, which nullified and set aside the June 11, 2010 Decision 3 of the Voluntary Arbitration

Panel

(Arbitration Committee)

in a case involving the removal of chairs in the bottling plant of Coca-Cola

Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

(CCBPI)

The Factual and Procedural

Antecedents

The factual and procedural antecedents have been accurately recited in the May 24, 2011 CA decision as

follows:

Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the

manufacture, sale and distribution of softdrink products. It has several bottling plants all over the

country, one of which is located in Cebu City. Under the employ of each bottling plant are bottling

operators. In the case of the plant in Cebu City, there are 20 bottling operators who work for its

Bottling Line 1 while there are 12-14 bottling operators who man its Bottling Line 2. All of them are

male and they are members of herein respondent Royal Plant Workers Union (ROPWU).

The bottling operators work in two shifts. The first shift is from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the second shift is

from 5 p.m. up to the time production operations is finished. Thus, the second shift varies and may end

beyond eight (8) hours. However, the bottling operators are compensated with overtime pay if the shift

extends beyond eight (8) hours. For Bottling Line 1, 10 bottling operators work for each shift while 6 to

7 bottling operators work for each shift for Bottling Line 2.

Each shift has rotations of work time and break time. Prior to September 2008, the rotation is this:

after two and a half (2 1/2) hours of work, the bottling operators are given a 30-minute break and this

goes on until the shift ends. In September 2008 and up to the present, the rotation has changed and

bottling operators are now given a 30-minute break after one and one half (1 1/2) hours of work.

In 1974, the bottling operators of then Bottling Line 2 were provided with chairs upon their request. In

1988, the bottling operators of then Bottling Line 1 followed suit and asked to be provided also with

chairs. Their request was likewise granted. Sometime in September 2008, the chairs provided for the

operators were removed pursuant to a national directive of petitioner. This directive is in line with the

"I Operate, I Maintain, I Clean" program of petitioner for bottling operators, wherein every bottling

operator is given the responsibility to keep the machinery and equipment assigned to him clean and

safe. The program reinforces the task of bottling operators to constantly move about in the

performance of their duties and responsibilities. AcSIDE

With this task of moving constantly to check on the machinery and equipment assigned to him, a

bottling operator does not need a chair anymore, hence, petitioner's directive to remove them.

Furthermore, CCBPI rationalized that the removal of the chairs is implemented so that the bottling

operators will avoid sleeping, thus, prevent injuries to their persons. As bottling operators are working

with machines which consist of moving parts, it is imperative that they should not fall asleep as to do

so would expose them to hazards and injuries. In addition, sleeping will hamper the efficient flow of

operations as the bottling operators would be unable to perform their duties competently.

The bottling operators took issue with the removal of the chairs. Through the representation of herein

respondent, they initiated the grievance machinery of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in

November 2008. Even after exhausting the remedies contained in the grievance machinery, the parties

were (still at a deadlock with petitioner still insisting on the removal of the chairs and respondent still

against such measure. As such, respondent sent a Notice to Arbitrate, dated 16 July 2009, to petitioner

stating its position to submit the issue on the removal of the chairs for arbitration. Nevertheless, before

submitting to arbitration the issue, both parties availed of the conciliation/mediation proceedings before

the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Regional Branch No. VII. They failed to arrive at

an amicable settlement.

Thus, the process of arbitration continued and the parties appointed the chairperson and members of

the Arbitration Committee as outlined in the CBA. Petitioner and respondent respectively appointed as

members to the Arbitration Committee Mr. Raul A. Kapuno, Jr. and Mr. Luis Ruiz while they both chose

Atty. Alice Morada as chairperson thereof. They then executed a Submission Agreement which was

accepted by the Arbitration Committee on 01 October 2009. As contained in the Submission

Agreement, the sole issue for arbitration is whether the removal of chairs of the operators assigned at

the production/manufacturing line while performing their duties and responsibilities is valid or not.

Both parties submitted their position papers and other subsequent pleadings in amplification of their

respective stands. Petitioner argued that the removal of the chairs is valid as it is a legitimate exercise

of management prerogative, it does not violate the Labor Code and it does not violate the CBA it

contracted with respondent. On the other hand, respondent espoused the contrary view. It contended

that the bottling operators have been performing their assigned duties satisfactorily with the presence

of the chairs; the removal of the chairs constitutes a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety

Standards, the policy of the State to assure the right of workers to just and humane conditions of work

as stated in Article 3 of the Labor Code and the Global Workplace Rights Policy.

Ruling of the Arbitration Committee

On June 11, 2010, the Arbitration Committee rendered a decision in favor of the Royal Plant Workers

Union

(the Union)

and against CCBPI, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

Wherefore, the undersigned rules in favor of ROPWU declaring that the removal of the operators chairs

is not valid. CCBPI is hereby ordered to restore the same for the use of the operators as before their

removal in 2008. 4

The Arbitration Committee ruled, among others, that the use of chairs by the operators had been a company

practice for 34 years in Bottling Line 2, from 1974 to 2008, and 20 years in Bottling Line 1, from 1988 to 2008;

that the use of the chairs by the operators constituted a company practice favorable to the Union; that it

ripened into a benefit after it had been enjoyed by it; that any benefit being enjoyed by the employees could

not be reduced, diminished, discontinued, or eliminated by the employer in accordance with Article 100 of the

Labor Code, which prohibited the diminution or elimination by the employer of the employees' benefit; and

that jurisprudence had not laid down any rule requiring a specific minimum number of years before a benefit

would constitute a voluntary company practice which could not be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer.

The Arbitration Committee further stated that, although the removal of the chairs was done in good faith,

CCBPI failed to present evidence regarding instances of sleeping while on duty. There were no specific details

as to the number of incidents of sleeping on duty, who were involved, when these incidents happened, and

what actions were taken. There was no evidence either of any accident or injury in the many years that the

bottling operators used chairs. To the Arbitration Committee, it was puzzling why it took 34 and 20 years for

CCBPI to be so solicitous of the bottling operators' safety that it removed their chairs so that they would not

fall asleep and injure themselves.

End of Preview - Want to read all 39 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

[G.R. No. 198783. April 15, 2013.] ROYAL PLANT WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.-CEBU PLANT, respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J p: Assailed in this petition is the May 24, 2011 Decision 1 and the September 2, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05200, entitled Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant v. Royal Plant Workers Union, which nullified and set aside the June 11, 2010 Decision 3 of the Voluntary Arbitration Panel(Arbitration Committee) in a case involving the removal of chairs in the bottling plant of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI). The Factual and Procedural Antecedents The factual and procedural antecedents have been accurately recited in the May 24, 2011 CA decision as follows: Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of softdrink products. It has several bottling plants all over the country, one of which is located in Cebu City. Under the employ of each bottling plant are bottling operators. In the case of the plant in Cebu City, there are 20 bottling operators who work for its Bottling Line 1 while there are 12-14 bottling operators who man its Bottling Line 2. All of them are male and they are members of herein respondent Royal Plant Workers Union (ROPWU). The bottling operators work in two shifts. The first shift is from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the second shift is from 5 p ...
Purchase document to see full attachment