Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Philippine Appliance Corp V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    benbongon31
    This case involves the payment of a signing bonus to employees that was deemed owed by the Court of Appeals based on the maintenance of existing benefits clause. The petitioner argues that under the precedent of Caltex vs. Brillantes, a signing bonus should only be awarded if negotiations were peaceful and disputes amicably resolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the bonus because the petitioner had originally offered it to expedite negotiations. However, the Supreme Court held that the signing bonus was not covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause because negotiations did not result in a speedy and amicable conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement as required.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine Appliance Corp V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    benbongon31
    24 views1 page
    This case involves the payment of a signing bonus to employees that was deemed owed by the Court of Appeals based on the maintenance of existing benefits clause. The petitioner argues that under the precedent of Caltex vs. Brillantes, a signing bonus should only be awarded if negotiations were peaceful and disputes amicably resolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the bonus because the petitioner had originally offered it to expedite negotiations. However, the Supreme Court held that the signing bonus was not covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause because negotiations did not result in a speedy and amicable conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement as required.

    Original Description:

    Labor Case

    Original Title

    Case 93

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the payment of a signing bonus to employees that was deemed owed by the Court of Appeals based on the maintenance of existing benefits clause. The petitioner argues that under the precedent of Caltex vs. Brillantes, a signing bonus should only be awarded if negotiations were peaceful and disputes amicably resolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the bonus because the petitioner had originally offered it to expedite negotiations. However, the Supreme Court held that the signing bonus was not covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause because negotiations did not result in a speedy and amicable conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Philippine Appliance Corp V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    benbongon31
    This case involves the payment of a signing bonus to employees that was deemed owed by the Court of Appeals based on the maintenance of existing benefits clause. The petitioner argues that under the precedent of Caltex vs. Brillantes, a signing bonus should only be awarded if negotiations were peaceful and disputes amicably resolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the bonus because the petitioner had originally offered it to expedite negotiations. However, the Supreme Court held that the signing bonus was not covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause because negotiations did not result in a speedy and amicable conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Rogeline R.

    Magno
    Block A

    PHILIPPINE APPLIANCE CORP V. CA


    G.R. No. 149434
    June 3, 2004

    Facts:

    This is a case by appeal for certiorari by the petitioner to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, in
    connection with the petitioner’s partial appeal and as well as the resolution of the same court, denying
    the motion for reconsideration. The case involves the payment of signing bonus, to which the employees
    of the herein petitioner was deemed to be entitled to by the Court of Appeals, in affirming the order of
    the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The petitioner contends the principle laid down in the case of
    Caltex vs. Brillantes, which held that the award for a signing bonus should partake the nature of an
    incentive and premium for the peaceful negotiations and amicable resolution of disputes. The court on
    the other hand, argues that award of the signing bonus was affirmed since petitioner itself offered the
    same as an incentive to expedite the CBA negotiations. This offer was not withdrawn and was still
    outstanding when the dispute reached the DOLE, therefore still covered by the maintenance of existing
    benefits clause.

    Issue:
    Whether the signing bonus is covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause.

    Held:

    No, the signing bonus is no longer covered under the maintenance of existing benefits clause.
    The petitioner can longer be obliged to pay the signing bonus because the requirement of a speedy and
    amicable conclusion of the CBA negotiations was not complied with. As stated in the case of Meralco vs.
    The Honorable Secretary of Labor the court stated that, a signing bonus is a grant motivated by the
    goodwill generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated and signed between the employer and the
    union. In the present case, such signing bonus cannot be considered covered by the maintenance of
    existing benefits clause because, the award for a signing bonus is in the nature of an incentive and
    premium for peaceful negotiations and amicable resolution of disputes which apparently are not present
    in the instant case.

    You might also like