Scribd
Upload
149 views2 pages

Wise Co. vs. Wise Union, October 13, 1989

The management of Wise Co. introduced a profit sharing scheme for managers and supervisors but denied the request of the respondent union to participate. This caused the union to file a strike notice alleging discrimination. After negotiations, the parties agreed to voluntary arbitration. The arbitrator ordered Wise Co. to extend profit sharing to union members. However, the court ruled that under the collective bargaining agreement, union members and non-union employees were classified differently. As such, providing profit sharing only to non-union employees was within the company's managerial prerogative and did not constitute unlawful discrimination since the employees were not similarly situated. The petition was granted and the arbitrator's decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

Cuddly
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views2 pages

Wise Co. vs. Wise Union, October 13, 1989

The management of Wise Co. introduced a profit sharing scheme for managers and supervisors but denied the request of the respondent union to participate. This caused the union to file a strike notice alleging discrimination. After negotiations, the parties agreed to voluntary arbitration. The arbitrator ordered Wise Co. to extend profit sharing to union members. However, the court ruled that under the collective bargaining agreement, union members and non-union employees were classified differently. As such, providing profit sharing only to non-union employees was within the company's managerial prerogative and did not constitute unlawful discrimination since the employees were not similarly situated. The petition was granted and the arbitrator's decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

Cuddly
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1

94. Wise Co. vs. Wise Union, October 13, 1989


FACTS:

The management issued a memorandum circular introducing a profit


sharing scheme for its managers and supervisors the initial distribution. The
respondent union wrote petitioner asking for participation in this scheme but
it was denied by petitioner on the ground that it had to adhere strictly to the
CBA. Petitioner distributed the profit sharing benefit not only to managers
and supervisors but also to all other rank and file employees not covered by
the CBA. This caused the respondent union to file a notice of strike alleging
that petitioner was guilty of ULP because the union members were
discriminated against in the grant of the profit sharing benefits. Management
refused to proceed with the CBA negotiations unless the last notice of strike
was first resolved. The union agreed to postpone discussions on the profit
sharing demand until a new CBA was concluded. After a series of
conciliation conferences, the parties agreed to settle the dispute through
voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator issued an award ordering
petitioner to likewise extend the benefits of the 1987 profit sharing scheme
to the members of respondent union. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its


non-union member employees is discriminatory against its workers who are
union members.

HELD:

NO. Under the CBA between the parties, there is a clause where the
employees are classified into those who are members of the union and those
who are not. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to the
employees outside the “bargaining unit” falls under the ambit of its
managerial prerogative. It appears to have been done in good faith and
without ulterior motive. In the case of the union members, they derive their
benefits from the terms and conditions of the CBA contract which constitute
the law between the contracting parties. Both the employer and the union
members are bound by such agreement. There can be no discrimination
committed by petitioner thereby as the situation of the union employees are
different and distinct from the non-union employees. Indeed, discrimination
per se is not unlawful. There can be no discrimination where the employees
concerned are not similarly situated.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED reversed the decision of voluntary


arbitrator.
2

You might also like