RFM CORPORATION vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMUSec. 3, Art. XVI of each of the CBAs reads:Section. 3. Special Holidays with Pay The COMPANY agrees to make payment to all daily paid employees, in respect of any of the days enumerated hereunto if declared as special holidays by the national government:a) Black Saturday; b) November 1; c) December 31The compensation rate shall be the regular rate.

Dec. 31, 2000, a Sunday was declared as a special holiday. Respondents claimed payment of their salaries. Petitioner refused, averring that December 31, 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest day. Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) declared that the provision of the CBA is clear. CA affirmed VA.

Petitioner: The CBA was intended to protect the employees from reduction of their take-home pay, hence, it was not meant to remunerate them on Sundays, which are rest days, nor to increase their salaries. ISSUE: Whether RFM should pay the salaries of Dec. 31

RULING: YES. If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. As such, the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays, regardless of whether they fall on rest days. The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are obliged to comply with its provisions. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER vs. NLRCNFL (bargaining unit of New Pacific) started to negotiate for better terms for the employees in the bargaining unit. However, the petitioner resisted so NFL was prompted to file a complaint for ULP on the ground of refusal to bargain collectively.Labor Arbiter issued an order declaring petitioner guilty of ULP, NLRC affirmed Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter then order directing petitioner to pay the 142 employees entitled to the benefits. Petitioner complied; and the corresponding quitclaims were executed.However, Petition for Relief was filed in behalf of 186 of the private respondents. They claimed that they were excluded from enjoying the benefits under the CBA since the agreement with NFL and petitioner limited the CBA's implementation to only the 142 rank-and-file employees enumerated. The appeal is granted and the Order of the Labor arbiter is set aside and vacated. Petitioner: Private respondents are not entitled to the benefits because employees hired after the term of a CBA are not parties to the agreement, even if they subsequently become members of the bargaining unit. Article 253 of the Labor Code refers to the continuation in full force and effect of the previous CBA's terms and conditions. By necessity, it could not possibly refers to terms and conditions which, as expressly stipulated, ceased to have force and effect.ISSUE: 1. Are the new employees entitled to the benefits? (2. Can a CBA be extended beyond period stipulated?)RULING: 1. YES when a CBA is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer, even the non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. To exclude them would constitute undue discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would be entitled to under a new CBA to which they would have been parties. In this case, no new agreement had been entered into after the CBAs stipulated term, it is only fair that the employees hired after be included in the existing CBA. This is in consonance with our ruling that the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement continue to have force and effect even beyond the stipulated term when no new agreement is executed by and between the parties to avoid or prevent the situation where no collective bargaining agreement at all would govern between the employer company and its employees.(2.YES. Under Art 253, it is clear that until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties, they are duty-bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. The law does not provide for any exception nor qualification as to which of the economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain force and effect, therefore, it must be understood as encompassing all the terms and conditions in the said agreement. In this case, no new agreement was entered into by and between petitioner Company and NFL pending appeal of the decision in NLRC; nor were any of the economic provisions and/or terms and conditions pertaining to monetary benefits in the existing agreement modified or altered. Therefore, the existing CBA in its entirety, continues to have legal effect.)TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. NLRCCBA was executed between TDI and TDLU. It also contained a union security clause which provides:All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract, become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment, maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement.While the CBA was in effect the respondents joined another union, KAMPIL and organized its local chapter in TDI. KAMPIL filed a petition for certification election, which compelled TDI to file a grievance with TDLU. TDLU, after investigations expelled the respondents from TDLU for disloyalty. TDLU notified TDI that private respondents had been expelled from TDLU and demanded that TDI terminate the employment of private respondents because they had lost their membership. TDI agreed. The private respondents then filed with the MOLE a complaint for illegal dismissal against TDI.Previously, however, the Med-Arbiter granted KAMPILs petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter's Order stated, that the existence of an uncertified CBA cannot be availed of as a bar to the holding of a certification election. On appeal of TDI and TDLU to the BLR, the order for the holding of a certification election was reversed and set aside.Kampil filed a MR whereby BLR granted, because CBA has now expired, there appears to be no more obstacle in allowing a certification election. Labor Arbiter denied TDI's application to terminate the private respondents. NLRC affirmed. Petitioner: The CBA is valid and binding not only on TDI and TDLU but likewise on private respondents who have ratified the same in their individual capacities as members of TDLU; hence, the union security clause is valid and binding on them.ISSUE: whether TDI is guilty of ULP.RULING: NO. The dismissal of an employee pursuant to a demand of the majority union in accordance with a union security agreement following the loss of seniority rights is valid and privileged and does not constitute an ULP. Article 249 of the LC recognizes the closed shop arrangement as a form of union security. The closed shop, etc, are valid forms of union security and strength. They do not constitute ULP.Having ratified that CBA and being then members, are required under the Union Security Clause to maintain their membership in good standing with it during the term thereof, a requirement which ceases to be binding only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. When the private respondents organized and joined the KAMPIL Chapter in TDI and filed the corresponding petition for certification election in there was no freedom period to speak of yet.HACIENDA FATIMA vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS -FOOD AND GENERAL TRADEWhen the union was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the certification elections, respondents under the pretext that the result was on appeal, refused to sit down with the union for the purpose of entering into a CBA. The workers including the union were not given work for more than one month. The union staged a strike which was settled upon the signing of a MOA:'a)The parties will meet for CBA negotiations within 30 days. xxxHowever, respondents defaulted on its commitment to bargain collectively. Instead, it employed all means including the use of private armed guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.Respondents did not any more give work assignments forcing the union to stage a strike. But due to the conciliation another MOA was signed which provides:'Whereas the union staged a strike against management grounded on the dismissal of the union officials and members; xxxPetitioner: respondents are 'refusing to work and being choosy in the kind of work they have to perform.ISSUE: ULP by Hacienda?RULING: YES. From respondents' refusal to bargain, to their acts of economic inducements resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew from the union, the use of armed guards to prevent the organizers to come in, and the dismissal of union officials and members, respondents did not want a union in their haciendaa clear interference in the right of the workers to self-organization.