Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ves, tools and supplies lost and/or destroyed, and other miscellaneous expenses, all amounting to P1,911,363.83. So, BENGUET sued UNION, PAFLU and their respective Presidents to recover said amount in the Court of First Instance of Manila, on the sole premise that said defendants breached their undertaking in the existing CONTRACT not to strike during the effectivity thereof . TRIAL COURT: The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the CONTRACT, particularly the No­Strike clause, did not bind defendants. The latters' counterclaim was likewise denied. Failing to get a reconsideration of said decision, BENGUET interposed the present appeal. ISSUE: 39 (1) Did the Collective Bargaining Contract executed between BENGUET and BBWU on June 23, 1959 and effective until December 23, 1963 automatically bind UNION­PAFLU upon its certification, on August 18, 1962, as sole bargaining representative of all BENGUET employees? (2) Are defendants labor unions and their respective presidents liable for the illegal acts committed during the course of the strike and picketing by some union members? (3) Are defendants liable to pay the damages claimed by BENGUET? SC DECISION: BENGUET's reliance upon the Principle of Substitution is totally misplaced. This principle, formulated by the NLRB as its initial compromise solution to the problem facing it when there occurs a shift in employees' union allegiance after the execution of a bargaining contract with their employer, merely states that even during the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement executed between employer and employees thru their agent, the employees can change said agent but the contract continues to bind them up to its expiration date. They may bargain however for the shortening of said expiration date. In formulating the "substitutionary" doctrine, the only consideration involved was the employees' interest in the existing bargaining agreement. The agent's interest never entered the picture. In fact, the justification for said doctrine was: ... that the majority of the employees,...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online