Scribd
Upload
126 views1 page

Case: LMG Chemicals Corp. vs. Sec. of Labor and Employment GR No. 127422 Facts

This case discusses a labor dispute between LMG Chemicals Corp. and a union regarding negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. They were unable to agree on wage increases and other economic issues. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. The Secretary then issued an order stating the new CBA would be retroactive to January 1, 1996. The main issue is whether making the CBA retroactive to that date is proper. The ruling found that since the parties could not agree and jurisdiction was assumed, it was within the Secretary's discretion to decide the retroactivity date.

Uploaded by

Michael Ang Sauza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views1 page

Case: LMG Chemicals Corp. vs. Sec. of Labor and Employment GR No. 127422 Facts

This case discusses a labor dispute between LMG Chemicals Corp. and a union regarding negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. They were unable to agree on wage increases and other economic issues. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. The Secretary then issued an order stating the new CBA would be retroactive to January 1, 1996. The main issue is whether making the CBA retroactive to that date is proper. The ruling found that since the parties could not agree and jurisdiction was assumed, it was within the Secretary's discretion to decide the retroactivity date.

Uploaded by

Michael Ang Sauza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Case: LMG Chemicals Corp. vs. Sec.

of Labor and Employment


GR No. 127422

Facts:
Sometimes in December 1995, the petitioner and the respondent started negotiation for a
new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as their old CBA was about to expire. They were able to
agree on the political provisions of the new CBA, but no agreement was reached on the issue of wage
increase. The economic issues were not also settled.

With the CBA negotiation deadlock, on March 6, 1996, respondent union filed a Notice of
Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Despite several conferences and efforts of
the designated conciliator-mediator, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.

On May 20, 1996, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, finding the instant labor dispute
impressed with national interest, assumed jurisdiction over the same.

On October 7, 1996, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued the order. The order
includes the effectivity of the new CBA which shall retroact on January 1, 1996.

Issue:
Whether or not, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to be signed by the parties shall
retroact to January 1, 1996 is proper.

Ruling:

Article 253-A (now Art. 265), any agreement on such other provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement entered into within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other
provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately
following such date. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree
on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.

In this case, in as much as the parties could not agree on the issue and since the Secretary of
Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction, then the matter lies at the discretion of the latter.

To deprive the Secretary of such power and discretion would run counter to the well-
established rule that all doubts in the interpretation of labor laws should be resolved in favor of labor.

Assumption of Jurisdiction/Compulsory Arbitration

6. Awards and orders, Art. 278 (i); 292 (i)

You might also like