Atlas Farms vs NLRC (Labor Law)

Atlas Farms Inc. vs NLRC

GR No. 142244 

November 18, 2002

 

Facts:

Jaime O. dela Peña was employed as a veterinary aide by petitioner and terminated. He was re-hired by petitioner and given the additional job of feed mill operator. He was instructed to train selected workers to operate the feed mill. He was allegedly caught urinating and defecating on company premises not intended for the purpose. The farm manager of petitioner issued a formal notice directing him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violating company rules and regulations. Peña never bothered to explain thus he was terminated with separation pay. Marcial I. Abion was a carpenter/mason and a maintenance man whose employed by petitioner and allegedly caused the clogging of the fishpond drainage resulting in damages worth several hundred thousand pesos when he improperly disposed of the cut grass and other waste materials into the pond‘s drainage system. Upon failure to explain what happened after notice, he was terminated with separation pay. Peña and Abion filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal that were later consolidated. Both claimed that their termination from service was due to petitioner‘s suspicion that they were the leaders in a plan to form a union to compete and replace the existing management-dominated union. Labor arbiter dismissed their complaints on the ground that the grievance machinery in the collective bargaining agreement had not yet been exhausted. Private respondents availed of the grievance process, but later on refiled the case due to lack of sympathy on petitioner‘s part to engage in conciliation proceedings. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as it belonged to the grievance machinery and thereafter the voluntary arbitrator, as provided in the CBA. Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Thus, private respondents brought the case to the NLRC, which reversed the labor arbiter‘s decision. Dissatisfied with the NLRC ruling, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the same. Hence this petition.

 

Issue:

WON the labor arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction to decide complaints for illegal dismissal?

 

Ruling:

Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. A possible exception is provided in Article 261 of the Labor Code, which provides that- The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. Accordingly, 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. The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the grievance Machinery or Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Where the dispute is just in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage, it may be referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA, or brought to voluntary arbitration. But, where there was already actual termination, with alleged violation of the employee‘s rights, it is already cognizable by the labor arbiter. In sum, we conclude that the labor arbiter and then the NLRC had jurisdiction over the cases involving private respondents’ dismissal, and no error was committed by the appellate court in upholding their assumption of jurisdiction.