Part I : Introductory MaterialsLabor Standards
UP LAW BAROPS 2007ONE UP
2 of 132
Great Pacific Employees Union v. Great PacificLife Assurance (99)
It bears emphasis that the employer is free toregulate all aspects of employment according to hisown discretion and judgment. This prerogativeflowed from the established rule that labor laws donot authorize substitution of judgment of theemployer in the conduct of his business. Recall f workers clearly falls within the ambit of managementprerogative. The employer can exercise thisprerogative without fear of liability so long as it isdone in good faith for the advancement of hisinterest and not for the purpose of defeating orcircumventing the rights of the employees underspecial laws or valid agreements. It is valid as it isnot performed in a malicious, harsh, oppressive,vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice orspite.
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. NLRC (99)
The State affords the constitutional blanket of rendering protection to labor, but it must alsoprotect the right of employers to exercise what areclearly management prerogatives, so long as theexercise is without abuse of discretion.
Bontia v. NLRC (96)
The rule is well settled that labor lawsdiscourage interference with an employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. Even as thelaw is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it mustalso protect the right of an employer to exercisewhat are clearly management prerogatives As longas the company' s exercise of the same is in goodfaith in order to advance its interests and not for thepurpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under the law or valid agreements,such exercise will be upheld.However, management prerogatives are notabsolute but are subject to legal limits, collectivebargaining agreements, or general principles of fairplay and justice. And, while it is the special privilegeof management to dismiss or lay off an employee,the exercise of that prerogative must be madewithout abuse of discretion, for what is at stake isnot only the employee' s position but also his meansof livelihood. Courts may, therefore, look into theemployer' s exercise of a management prerogative if the same is clearly shown to be tainted with graveabuse of discretion, 15 ever mindful that, under theforegoing principles and the policy of the State,doubts should be resolved in favor of thedisadvantaged employee.
1.07 COMPROMISE AND WAIVERArticle 227
Any compromise settlement, including thoseinvolving labor standards law, voluntarily agreedupon by the parties with the assistance of theBureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be
FINAL and BINDING
upon theparties. The National Labor relations Commission orany court
shall not assume jurisdiction overissues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facieevidence that the settlement was obtainedthrough FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, ORCOERCION
RulesAsian Alcohol Corp. v. NLRC (99)
It is true that this Court has generally held thatquitclaims and releases are contrary to public policyand therefore, void. Nonetheless, voluntaryagreements that represent a reasonable settlementare binding on the parties and should not later bedisowned. It is only where there is clear proof thatthe waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting orgullible person, or the terms of the settlement areunconscionable, that the law will step in to bail outthe employee. While it is our duty to prevent theexploitation of employees, it also behooves us toprotect the sanctity of contracts that do notcontravene our laws.
More Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC (99)
In American Home Assurance Co. v. NLRC, thisCourt held:
“The law does not consider as valid anyagreement to receive less compensation thatwhat a worker is entitled to recover nor preventhim from demanding benefits to which he isentitled. Quitclaims executed by the employeesare thus commonly frowned upon as contrary topublic policy and ineffective to bar claims for thefull measure of the worker’s legal rights,considering the economic disadvantage of theemployee and the inevitable pressure upon himby financial necessity.”
Thus, it is never enough to assert that the partieshave voluntarily entered into such a quitclaim.
Golden Donuts, Inc. v. NLRC (2000)
A compromise, once approved by final orders of the court has the force of res judicata between theparties and should not be disturbed except for vicesof consent or forgery." A compromise is basically acontract perfected by mere consent. "Consent ismanifested by the meeting of the offer and theacceptance upon the thing and the cause which areto constitute the contract." A compromiseagreement is not valid when a party in the case hasnot signed the same or when someone signs for andin behalf of such party without authority to do so.
1.08 SOURCES OF LAWL
Article 1305 Civil Code
A contract is a meeting of the minds between twopersons whereby one binds himself, with respect tothe other, to give something or to render someservice.
Article 1306 Civil Code
The contracting parties may establish suchstipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as theymay deem convenient, provided they are notcontrary to law, morals, good customs, public order,or public policy.
Collective Bargaining Agreement
Plastic Town Center Corp. v. NLRC (89)
The subject for interpretation in this petition forreview is not the Labor Code or its implementingrules and regulations but the provisions of thecollective bargaining agreement entered into bymanagement and the labor union. As a contract,