Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Manila Electric Co. v. SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    MERALCO and MEWA, the labor union representing MERALCO employees, were negotiating the renewal of their collective bargaining agreement but failed to reach an agreement. MEWA filed a notice of strike, which led to conciliation meetings overseen by the Department of Labor and Employment. The issue before the court was whether MERALCO employees were entitled to annual bonuses that had been negotiated in previous agreements but were not part of the current negotiations. The court ruled that the employees were entitled to the bonuses because MERALCO had established a long-standing practice of providing additional Christmas bonuses to employees since 1988, making the bonuses an expected employee benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manila Electric Co. v. SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    137 views2 pages
    MERALCO and MEWA, the labor union representing MERALCO employees, were negotiating the renewal of their collective bargaining agreement but failed to reach an agreement. MEWA filed a notice of strike, which led to conciliation meetings overseen by the Department of Labor and Employment. The issue before the court was whether MERALCO employees were entitled to annual bonuses that had been negotiated in previous agreements but were not part of the current negotiations. The court ruled that the employees were entitled to the bonuses because MERALCO had established a long-standing practice of providing additional Christmas bonuses to employees since 1988, making the bonuses an expected employee benefit.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    MERALCO and MEWA, the labor union representing MERALCO employees, were negotiating the renewal of their collective bargaining agreement but failed to reach an agreement. MEWA filed a notice of strike, which led to conciliation meetings overseen by the Department of Labor and Employment. The issue before the court was whether MERALCO employees were entitled to annual bonuses that had been negotiated in previous agreements but were not part of the current negotiations. The court ruled that the employees were entitled to the bonuses because MERALCO had established a long-standing practice of providing additional Christmas bonuses to employees since 1988, making the bonuses an expected employee benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views2 pages

    Manila Electric Co. v. SOLE

    Uploaded by

    Joesil Dianne Sempron
    MERALCO and MEWA, the labor union representing MERALCO employees, were negotiating the renewal of their collective bargaining agreement but failed to reach an agreement. MEWA filed a notice of strike, which led to conciliation meetings overseen by the Department of Labor and Employment. The issue before the court was whether MERALCO employees were entitled to annual bonuses that had been negotiated in previous agreements but were not part of the current negotiations. The court ruled that the employees were entitled to the bonuses because MERALCO had established a long-standing practice of providing additional Christmas bonuses to employees since 1988, making the bonuses an expected employee benefit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MANILA ELECTRIC CO. VS.

    SECRETARY OF LABOR

    FACTS:

    MEWA is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of MERALCO. In 1995,
    MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to re-negotiate the terms and conditions of their existing
    1992-1997 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering the remaining period of two years starting
    from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1997. MERALCO sent a letter which signified their willingness.
    They formed a CBA negotiating panel for the purpose. On November 10, 1995, MEWA submitted its
    proposal to MERALCO, which, in turn, presented a counter-proposal. Their collective bargaining
    negotiations proceeded. However, despite the series of meetings between the negotiating panels of
    MERALCO and MEWA, the parties failed to arrive at “terms and conditions acceptable to both of them.”

    On April 23, 1996, MEWA filed a Notice of Strike with the NCR Branch of the NCMB of DOLE, on the
    grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices. The NCMB then conducted a series of
    conciliation meetings but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.

    MERALCO filed a petition to let the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the case which was
    granted.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the members of MEWA are entitled to benefits given as bonuses, being negotiated in the CBA.

    RULING:

    YES.

    The members of MEWA are entitled to the benefits although in the form of benefits which is a subject of
    the negotiation of CBA. As a rule, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation; it may
    nevertheless be granted on equitable consideration as when the giving of such bonus has been the
    company’s long and regular practice. To be considered a “regular practice,” the giving of the bonus
    should have been done over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and
    deliberate.
    The ruling in National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. NLRC: “The test or rationale of this rule on long
    practice requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits
    knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment thereof.”

    In this case, the record shows the MERALCO, aside from complying with the regular 13th month bonus,
    has further been giving its employees an additional Christmas bonus at the tail-end of the year since
    1988. While the special bonuses differed in amount and bore different titles, it cannot be denied that
    these were given voluntarily and continuously on or about Christmas time. The considerable length of
    time MERALCO has been giving the special grants to its employees indicates a unilateral and voluntary
    act on its part, to continue giving said benefits knowing that such act was not required by law. Indeed, a
    company practice favorable to the employees has been established and the payments made by
    MERALCO pursuant thereto ripened into benefits enjoyed by the employees. Consequently, the giving of
    the special bonus can no longer be withdrawn by the company as this would amount to a diminution of
    the employee’s existing benefits.

    You might also like