Scribd
Upload
164 views1 page

Divine World Case

The Divine Word University Employees Union filed a notice of strike against Divine Word University due to a bargaining deadlock. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed all striking workers to return to work. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no deadlock or impasse in bargaining as the University did not make a reasonable good faith effort to bargain with the certified union. While the union was pursuing various avenues for an agreement, the University showed reluctance and thinly disguised refusal to bargain.

Uploaded by

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

Divine World Case

The Divine Word University Employees Union filed a notice of strike against Divine Word University due to a bargaining deadlock. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed all striking workers to return to work. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no deadlock or impasse in bargaining as the University did not make a reasonable good faith effort to bargain with the certified union. While the union was pursuing various avenues for an agreement, the University showed reluctance and thinly disguised refusal to bargain.

Uploaded by

Josh Napiza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Napiza, Jose Miguel M.

2017400033 Labor Relations 3A

DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

FACTS: The med-arbiter certified the Divine Word University Employees Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of the Divine Word University. The University requested that a preliminary
conference be held. Before the conference, the VP of the union resigned and withdrew the proposals
hence the preliminary conference was cancelled. After three years, the Associated Labor Union requested
a conference with the University for the purposes of continuing the bargaining negotiations. The
university maintained it silence. The union thereafter filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and ULP, refusal to bargain, discrimination and coercion. Conferences were held after the filing
of the notice of strike and the parties came to an agreement. It was found however, that the university
filed for a petition for certification election one hour before the agreement was concluded. The union then
submitted proposals, which were again ignored by the university. Marathon conciliations were held to no
avail. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed that all striking workers to report back to
work within 24 hours.

ISSUE: Can there be a deadlock or an impasse in the collective bargaining process

LAW: Labor Code, Art. 252

CASE HISTORY: The Secretary of Labor dismissed not only the case filed by DWUEU-ALU for unfair
labor practice on the ground of the union’s failure to prove the commission of the unfair labor practice
acts specifically complained of but also the complaint filed by the University for unfair labor practices
and illegal strike for “obvious lack of merit brought about by its utter failure to submit evidence” Acting
Secretary then concluded that for reneging on the agreement, the University should be “declared in
default.” He also maintained that since under the circumstances the University cannot claim deprivation
of due process, the Office of the Secretary of Labor might rightfully impose the Union’s May 19, 1988
collective bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio.

RULING: The Court is not inclined to rule that there has been a deadlock or an impasse in the collective
bargaining process. As the Court earlier observed, there has not been a “reasonable effort at good faith
bargaining” on the part of the University. While DWUEU-ALU was opening all possible avenues for the
conclusion of an agreement, the record is replete with evidence on the University’s reluctance and thinly
disguised refusal to bargain with the duly certified bargaining agent, such that the inescapable conclusion
is that the University evidently had no intention of bargaining with it.

OPINION: I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. It is true that while the Court recognizes the
techinicalities, the University failed to act in accordance with Art. 252 which defines the meaning of the
duty to bargain collectively as the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith.

You might also like