The management and Union X in Atisan Mining entered into a CBA for 1997 to 2001. After 6 months, a majority of the members of Union X formed Union Y and sought management recognition. The latter responded by not dealing with either union. But, when the CBA's economic provisions had to be renegotiated towards the end of the term of the CBA, the management chose to negotiate with Union Y, the newer union. Thus, Union X which negotiated the existing CBA charged the company with ULP. The company argued that it committed no unfair labor practice since the supposed violation had nothing to do with economic provisions of the CBA. Is the management right?

a. No. Refusal to comply with the CBA's economic provisions is not the only ground for ULP; a disregard of the entire CBA by refusing to renegotiate with the incumbent bargaining agent is also ULP.
b. Yes. No unfair labor practice was committed because the supposed violation has nothing to do with economic provisions of the CBA.
c. Yes. The management commits no ULP when it decided to renegotiate with the numerically majority union.
d. Yes. A CBA violation amounts to ULP only if the violation is "gross," meaning flagrant or malicious refusal to comply with the CBA's economic provisions which is not the case here.
(2011 BAR)