P. 1
Labor II

Labor II

|Views: 437|Likes:
Published by kumag2

More info:

Published by: kumag2 on Oct 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/03/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • 1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE
  • 2. LABOR ORGANIZATION – LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION
  • LABOR ORGANIZATION
  • SOURCES FOR THE POLICY
  • Art. XIII Sec. 3 (Labor) CONSTITUTION
  • 1.METHOD FOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
  • 3.WORKER ENLIGHTENMENT
  • 4.MACHINERY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
  • 5.INDUSTRIAL PEACE
  • 6.WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING
  • 8.LABOR INJUNCTION
  • 1.THE CONSTITUTION 1987 CONSTITUTION
  • 2.STATUTORY- LABOR CODE
  • 3.ILO CONVENTION NO.48
  • 2.GOVERNMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
  • 5.SECURITY GUARDS
  • 1.MANAGERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
  • LABOR ORGANIZATION V. WORKER’S ORGANIZATION
  • 1.UNION REGISTRATION AND PROCEDURE
  • 2.ACTIONS OR DENIAL OF APPLICATION AND REMEDY
  • 3.RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION
  • 4.CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
  • RULE XIV: CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
  • Section 3. Grounds for cancellation
  • 5.COLLATERAL ATTACK
  • Section 2. Visitorial power under Article 274
  • 1.AFFILIATION: PURPOSE OF; NATURE OF RELATIONS
  • 2.SUPERVISOR – RANK AND FILE UNION AFFILIATION
  • 3.LOCAL UNION DISAFFILIATION
  • RATIONALE OF THE COMMUNITY OR MUTUALITY OF INTEREST TEST:
  • ELEMENTS OF AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT:
  • 2.UNIT SEVERANCE AND THE GLOBE DOCTRINE
  • 3.SIZE OF UNIT AND EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
  • 4.EFFECT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT
  • CERTIFICATION ELECTION
  • DISCUSSIONS ON THE FREEDOM PERIOD
  • DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT RULE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS
  • R. Transport Corp. v Laguesma (227 SCRA 827)
  • BARS TO THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION
  • 1.POLICY DECLARATION
  • 1.PRIVATE PROCEDURE
  • 3.CONCILIATION PROCEDURE
  • 1. POSITIVE STATEMENT
  • 2. NEGATIVE STATEMENT DUTY:
  • 1.DEFINITION AND GENERAL CONCEPT
  • 3.LAW NOMENCLATURE AND INTER- RELATIONS OF ACTS OF ULP
  • 3.CONTRACTING OUT TO DISCOURAGE UNIONISM
  • 4.COMPANY DOMINATION UNION
  • 6.RETALIATION TESTIMONY AGAINST EMPLOYER
  • 7.EXACTION- FEATHERBEDDING
  • 1.VIOLATE DUTY TO BARGAIN
  • 2.NEGOTIATION OR ATTORNEY’S FEES
  • 3.VIOLATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
  • 1.EMPLOYER MOTIVE AND PROOF
  • 2.TOTALITY OF CONDUCT RULE AND EFFECT OF FAILURE OF ACT
  • 2.PARTIES LIABLE FOR ACTS
  • 3.PROSECUTION AND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
  • 5.REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS
  • 3.EFFECT WORK RELATIONSHIP
  • 7.PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
  • 8.TEST OF LEGALITY
  • 1.NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE
  • 2.PICKETING AND LIBEL LAWS
  • 3.EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
  • 6.PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- PEACEFUL PICKETING
  • 2.ARREST AND DETENTION OF LAW VIOLATORS
  • POLICY BEHIND PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION:
  • 2.PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS
  • 1.DEFINITION AND NATURE OF DISPUTE SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
  • 2.RATIONALE FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
  • 3.PROCESS INITIATION – CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE
  • 4.ARBITRATION AGENCIES
  • 6.AWARDS AND ORDERS
  • 7.OPTION – SUBMIT CASE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AFTER CERTIFICATION
  • 8.COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND LABOR RIGHTS
  • 2.BASIS FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AND RATIONALE
  • 3.PROCESS ENCOURAGEMENT/PROMOTION
  • 4.ARBITRABLE ISSUES
  • 7.FINALITY AND EXECUTION OF AWARDS

Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations

Part I : Definitions and Policy
1.01 DEFINITIONS
1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER Art. 212 (e)  “Employer INCLUDES any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly.”  “The term shall NOT include any labor organization or any of its officer or agents EXCEPT when acting as an employer.” Note: By using the word “includes” and not “mean”, Congress did not intend to give a complete definition of “employer”. But rather such definition should be complementary to what is commonly understood as employers.  The Statutory Definition: » Not only includes a principal employer, » BUT ALSO a person acting in behalf of an employer. IMPLICATION: the employer may NOT necessarily be the owner of the business. The Statutory Definition EXCLUDES the following: » A labor organization, and » One acting in behalf of a labor organization. Can a Labor Organization be considered an employer? » Yes, but the only instance wherein a labor organization becomes an employer is when it is acting as an employer in relation to its own employees and not as a labor organization. » Significance of this is that a Labor Organization can possibly commit an Unfair Labor Practice in two ways: ▪ As an Employer, if in relation to its own employees (Art. 248); or ▪ As a Labor Organization, in relation to the company(Art. 249).

entered between them was only one for lease of work. EMPLOYEES: one who is engaged in the service of another, who performs service for another, who works for salary or wages. NYK International Knitwear V. NLRC (2003) Anent petitioners’ assertion that they cannot be solidarily liable in this case as there was no malice or bad faith on their part has no leg to stand on. What the Court finds apropos is our disquisition in A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC, which held that since a corporation is an artificial person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be the employer, being the “person acting in the interest of the employer.” In other words the corporation, in the technical sense only, is the employer. In a subsequent case, we ordered the corporate officers of the employer corporation to pay jointly and solidarily the private respondents’ monetary award. More recently, a corporation and its president were directed by this Court to jointly and severally reinstate the illegally dismissed employees to their former positions and to pay the monetary awards. In this case Cathy Ng, admittedly, is the manager of NYK. Conformably with our ruling in A. C. Ransom, she falls within the meaning of an “employer” as contemplated by the Labor Code, who may be held jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the corporation to its dismissed employees. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, Cathy Ng, in her capacity as manager and responsible officer of NYK, cannot be exonerated from her joint and several liability in the payment of monetary award to private respondent. Great Southern Etc. V. Acuña (2005) A thorough scrutiny of the purported resignation letters reveals the true nature of these documents. In reality, they are waivers or quitclaims which are not sufficient to show valid separation from work or bar respondents from assailing their termination. The burden of proving that quitclaims were voluntarily entered into falls upon the employer. The reason for this rule was laid down in the landmark case of Cariño vs. ACCFA. Acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The reason is plain. Employer and employee, obviously, do not stand on the same footing. The employer drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of money. Because, out of job, he had to face the harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist money proffered. His, then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however, is that petitioners did not relent their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not to have waived any of their rights. 2. LABOR ORGANIZATION – LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION

 

EMPLOYEE Art. 212 (f)  “Employee INCLUDES any person in the employ1 of an employer. “  “The term shall NOT be limited to the employees of a particular employer, UNLESS this code so explicitly states.”  “It shall include any individual whose work HAS CEASED as a result of or in connection with -- a) Any current labor dispute; or b) Because of any unfair labor practice -- If he has NOT obtained any other SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT and REGULAR employment.” Feati University v. Bautista (1966) Feati University claims that teachers are not employees of the university and that the contract

LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. 212 (g)  Labor organization means any: a) Union or Association of employees b) which exists in whole or in part…

1

Employ: To make use of, the use the service of.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
1 of 139

Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations
c) for the purpose of: i. Collective bargaining concerning terms and conditions of employment, or ii. of Dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. LABOR ORGANIZATION COMPOSITION : Employees PURPOSE : Collective Bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. 212 (h)  Legitimate Labor Organization means any labor organization DULY REGISTERED with DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof.  Is the local or branch required to be a legitimate labor organization, even though the national union or federation to which its is affiliated is already a legitimate labor organization? -- Yes. Lopez Sugar Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (1995) It is not enough that the national union or federation, but the local or branch should also be a legitimate labor union either by 1. Direct (independent) registration or 2. By submitting requirements as a local affiliate of a legitimate labor organization. REASON: In relation to the employer, the local is the principal and the national union is the agent. So if the principal is not legitimate, it does not matter whether the agent is legitimate or not because as agent it acts as an extension of the personality of the principal and not as itself.  Can a legitimate labor organization be composed of both rank and file employees and supervisory employees? -- No. In this case the SC ruled that the infirmity in the membership of the respondent union cannot be remedied in "the pre-election conference thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters." The Secretary of Labor in this case gravely misappreciated the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rankand-file employees when he ordered to proceed with the certification election despite the presence of both supervisors and rank and file employees in one union. 3. LABOR DISPUTES Art. 212 (l)  LABOR DISPUTES: includes— 1. Any controversy or matter… 2. Concerning a. Terms or conditions of employment or b. The association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, … 3. regardless of whether the disputants stand in proximate relation of employer and employee.  Can a dispute between contractual employees (who are not regular employees of the company) and the company be considered a labor dispute, despite the absence of employee-employer relationship? – Yes.

Toyota Motor Philippines v. Toyota Motors Philippines Corporation Labor Union Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245, Labor Code], a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file apetition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.  Can a union composed of supervisors and rank and file employees of one company call for a certification election? – No. Dunlop v. Secrtary of Labor (1998)

San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v. Bersamira (1990) A labor dispute can nevertheless exist “regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee,” provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a change or arrangement thereof. The existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of an employer and employee. Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC (1991) Nestle’s demand for payment of the private respondents’ amortizations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is NOT A LABOR DISPUTE, but a civil dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather than employee-employer relations. Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC (1995) Note: A strike can only happen when there is a labor dispute. In this case a strike occurred. It was an illegal strike for not complying with formal requisites. a. A STRIKE, considered as the most effective weapon of labor is defined as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
2 of 139

Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations
b. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment of the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. c. Private respondents and their co-workers stopped working and held the mass action to press for their wages and other benefits. What transpired then was clearly a strike, for the cessation of work by concerted action resulted from a labor dispute. ARTICLE 211. LABOR CODE. Declaration of policy. — A. It is the policy of the State: a. To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development; c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement; d. To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union members and as employees; e. To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes; f. To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and g. To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare. B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining,  no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code. Exception to this is Article 263 g which discusses compulsory arbitration. 1. METHOD FOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

1.02 LABOR RELATIONS POLICY
SOURCES FOR THE POLICY  Art. XIII Sec. 3 1987 Constitution  Art. III Sec. 8 1987 Constitution  Art. 211 Labor Code Art. XIII Sec. 3 (Labor) CONSTITUTION The STATE shall: 1. Afford FULL PROTECTION to labor, ▪ Local and overseas* ▪ Organized and unorganized,* 2. And PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and EQUALITY of employment opportunities for all. 3. It shall guarantee the RIGHTS OF ALL WORKERS to (7): (Labor relations) ▪ Self-organization, ▪ Collective bargaining and negotiations ▪ And peaceful concerted activities, including  right to strike IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.* They shall be entitled to: (Labor standards) ▪ Security of Tenure ▪ Humane Conditions of Work, ▪ And a Living Wage.* They shall also: ▪ Participate in policy and decisionmaking processes affecting their (1) rights and (2) benefits as may be provided by law.* 4. The State promote: the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers.* 5. The State shall promote the preferential use of VOLUNTARY modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, ▪ And shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster INDUSTRIAL PEACE.* 6. The State shall regulate the relations between workersand employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
TAKE NOTE: Those with (*) are the new amendments in the 1987 Constitution, they were not included in the 1973 Constitution.

KEY CONCEPT: Voluntary and Free ART. 211 (a) To promote and emphasize the PRIMACY of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; ART 3 Declaration of basic policy. — The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to selforganization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work. Kiok Loy v. NLRC (1986) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed: 1. To stabilize the relation between labor and management and 2. To create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a LEGAL OBLIGATION.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
3 of 139

for the above purpose. 4. Petitioner as a union leader. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument » For the enhancement of democracy and » The promotion of social justice and development. Special fund for labor education and research. maintain a special fund for labor education and research. the CFI] has no jurisdiction to entertain petitions of labor unions or organizations of said non-profit organizations for certification as the exclusive bargaining representatives of said employees and laborers. DO No. strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings. 23 whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve. If they succeed and the employer succumbs. the legislative intendment was that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. Labor education of workers and employees. it shall be mandatory for every legitimate labor organization to conduct seminars and similar activities on existing labor laws. MACHINERY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ART. Martin Funeral Homes V. it was noted by the sponsor therein that some quarters were of the opinion that recourse from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals as an initial step in the process of judicial review would be circuitous and would prolong the proceedings. however. Incidentally. 40-03 RULE XX LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Art. and outside of the statute. 3. 211 b. 1495. protect and enforce. Mandatory conduct of seminars. Every legitimate labor organization shall. they cannot thereafter invoke the protection of the law for the consequences of their conduct unless the right they wished vindicated is one which the law will. c. union dues. collective agreements. Section 2. WORKER ENLIGHTENMENT ART. assessments and fines and other contributions for labor education and research. 211 (d) To promote the enlightenment of workers  concerning their rights and obligations  As union members and  As employees. Inciong (1988) This is a matter of responsibility and of answerability. The important distinction between them. But if they fail. in whole or in part. On the contrary. Petitioner should have known and it was his duty to impart this imputed knowledge to the members of the union that ernployees and laborers in non-profit organizations are not covered by the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act and the Court of Industrial Relations [in the case at bar.The Department shall develop.” St. It shall be the duty of every legitimate labor organization to implement a labor education program for its members on their rights and obligations as unionists and as employees. therefore. and as such. that procedure would be advantageous to the aggrieved party on this reasoning: UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 4 of 139 . The union seminars and similar activities may be conducted independently of or in cooperation with the Department and other labor education institutions. promote and implement appropriate labor education and research programs on the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. as he commendably and realistically emphasized. by all means. of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated. Existing strike funds may. 211e “To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes. As a strike is an economic weapon at war with the policy of the Constitution and the law at that time. company rules and regulations and other relevant matters. Section 3. but would subvert. The labor organization may also periodically assess and collect reasonable amounts from its members for such funds. ART 277 Miscellaneous provisions. must see to it that the policies and activities of the union in the conduct of labor relations are within the precepts of law and any deviation from the legal boundaries shall be imputable to the leader. the law will not stand in their way in the enjoyment of the lawful fruits of their victory. would foment anarchy which is a prelude to chaos. To foster the free and voluntary organization of » a strong and united labor movement. the strikers must accept all the risks attendant upon their choice. a resort thereto by laborers shall be deemed to be a choice of remedy peculiarly their own. mutual death and hospitalization benefits. be transformed into labor education and research funds.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations 2. Subject to the provisions of Article 241. NLRC (1998) The Court is. the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. — (a) All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees. (As amended by RA 6715) Victoria V. . TRADE UNIONISM Section 1. The use of the word "appeal" in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals. He bears the responsibility of guiding the union along the path of law and to cause the union to demand what is not legally demandable. welfare fund.

In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists. Assist the parties in setting up labormanagement structures. f. d. . h. with the agreement of labor organizations and employers. PAL asserts that all its Art.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations On the other hand. be dismissed outright by minute resolutions. all references in the amended Section 9 of B. g.” Art 273 STUDY OF LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS. Creation of labor-management and other councils. No. INDUSTRIAL PEACE 6. A perusal of the records will reveal appeals which are factual in nature and may. labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate levels of the enterprise based on shared responsibility and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace and improvement in productivity. except those which are covered by collective bargaining agreements or are traditional areas of bargaining. upon its own initiative or upon the request of both parties. c. The Secretary of Labor shall also inquire into the causes of industrial unrest and take all the necessary steps within his power as may be prescribed by law to alleviate the same. Provide process facilitators upon request of the parties. Section 2. NLRC (1993) Verily. duties. 277 (g) “The ministry shall help promote and gradually develop. Consequently. Monitor the activities of labor-management structures as may be necessary and conduct studies on best practices aimed at promoting harmonious labor-management relations. Desirable industrial practices which have been developed through collective bargaining for settling differences. and i.— The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and it shall be his duty to inquire into: a. b. among others. all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired. the Supreme Court can then apply strictly the axiom that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and may not be reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. the workers' representatives to the council shall be nominated by the exclusive bargaining representative. improvement of quality of work life. management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action. The growth of associations of employees and the effect of such associations upon employer-employee relations. functions and procedures. the Department shall render.P. b. 24 Therefore. modified or reversed. Art. Mr. the following services: a. The extent and results of the methods of collective bargaining in the determination of terms and conditions of employment. product quality improvement. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 5 of 139 . c. and the quality of working life. and shall from time to time recommend the enactment of such remedial legislation as in his judgment may be desirable for the maintenance and promotion of industrial peace. WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING Art. insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights. The existing relations between employers and employees in the Philippines. In line with the foregoing. the workers representative shall be elected directly by the employees at large. Any other aspects of employer-employee relations concerning the promotion of harmony and understanding between the parties.In organized establishments. and welfare. and other similar scheme. The possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of labormanagement cooperation. and d. President. The possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of labormanagement cooperation. benefits and welfare. working conditions. PAL V. a line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the employees. 211 (g) “To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights.The Department shall promote the formation of labor-management councils in organized and unorganized establishments to enable the workers to participate in policy and decision-making processes in the establishment. 40-03 RULE XXI LABOR-MANAGEMENT AND OTHER COUNCILS Section 1. 5. The Department shall promote other labormanagement cooperation schemes and. occupational safety and health. . to allow these cases to be appealed to the Court of Appeals would give litigants the advantage to have all the evidence on record be reexamined and reweighed after which the findings of facts and conclusions of said bodies are correspondingly affirmed. The relevance of labor laws and labor relations to national development. e. 211 (f) “To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace. Selection of representatives. may assist in the formulation and development of programs and projects on productivity. therefore. In treating the latter. Conduct awareness campaigns.” DO No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Under such guarantee. The methods which have been tried by employers and associations of employees for maintaining mutually satisfactorily relations.

Section 22. considering existing regional disparities in the cost of living and their socio-economic factors and the national economic and social development plans. Indeed. the President of the Philippines may at any time intervene and assume jurisdiction over such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. 264 – This provision talks about the prohibited activities in a strike. rates of pay. Manila Electric Co. of course. The State shall promote collective bargaining as the primary mode of settling wages and other terms and conditions of employment. expansion and growth. V. except as otherwise provided in Article 218 and 264 of this Code. No court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages. Public respondents found to the contrary." PAL's position that it cannot be saddled with the "obligation" of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code. except as otherwise provided by this Code. . unhampered as far as possible by judicial UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 6 of 139 . hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment. lock-out or picket which may be enjoined by an injunction. 2 Ra 6727 It is hereby declared the policy of the State to rationalize the fixing of minimum wages and to promote productivity-improvement and gainsharing measures to ensure a decent standard of living for workers and their families: to guarantee the rights of labor to its just share in the fruits of production: to enhance employment generation in the countryside through industry dispersal: and to allow business and industry reasonable returns on investments. 218 e – This article talks about the substantial and procedural rights from issuing an injunction. the employer should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decision or modes of action in order to attain a harmonious labor-management relationship and enlighten the workers concerning their rights. (See Code)  Art. (See Code)  RA8791. » However. Art. . to say the least is entitled to great respect. even before Article 211 was amended by RA. industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. 211B “To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining. not against the strike » BUT it may be issued against an illegal act in a strike which may cause substantial and irreparable damage to the property of a person. 6715. Rationale for prohibition: Caltex Filipino Mgrs & Supervisors Assoc.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations employees have been furnished copies of the Code (Company Personnel Policies). and whenever necessary. Absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner. the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. 263g – this article refers to strikes in industries indispensable to the national interest and compulsory arbitration. duties and welfare.” EXCEPTIONS:  Art. The banking industry is hereby declared as indispensable to the national interest and. cannot thus be sustained. 7. Thus. (See Code) ii) Fixing of minimum wage Art. RA 6715 had not yet been enacted. 254 INJUNCTION PROHIBITED – “No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity. and in treating the latter. Quisumbing (2000) A line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of employees. any strike or lockout involving banks. An injunction may be issued by the NLRC. amplified by RA 6715 when it decreed the "participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights. 875 for achieving industrial peace rests essentially on a FREE AND PRIVATE AGREEMENT between the employer and his employees as to the terms and conditions under which the employer is to give work and the employees are to furnish labor. LABOR INJUNCTION Art. Contracting out of services is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. While such "obligation" was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated. 8. v. the minimum wage rates shall be adjusted in fair and equitable manner. This provision allows the Secretary of Labor or the President to interfere by assuming jurisdiction or certifying the case to the NLRC. it was already declared a policy of the State to promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . the attainment of a harmonious labormanagement relationship and the then already existing state policy of enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights. » if unsettled after seven (7) calendar days shall be reported by the Bangko Sentral to the secretary of Labor ▪ who may assume jurisdiction over the dispute or decide it or ▪ certify the sane to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. » notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary. WAGE FIXING Sec. as employees. Strikes and Lockouts. which finding. This was.” Example of “otherwise provided by this Code”: i) Strikes in industries indispensable to the national interest—Compulsory Arbitration. CIR (1972) 1) It is well known that the scheme in Republic Act No.

2 Take note: this freedom is subject to legislative discretion. 3 (Labor) The STATE shall guarantee the RIGHTS OF ALL WORKERS to Self-organization… 2. On this premise the lawmaking body has virtually prohibited the issuance of injunctive relief involving or growing out of labor disputes. IMPLICATION of the phrase “for purposes not contrary to law”: The right is subject to legislative discretion. it prevails most of the time over the right to property of the employer. XIII Sec. IV Sec. 1935 Constitution Art. shall have the RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION and to form. III Sec.  Ambulant. 8  The RIGHT of the people including the PUBLIC and PRIVATE sectors. join. THE CONSTITUTION 1987 CONSTITUTION Art. it is both constitutionally guaranteed as well as statutorily guaranteed. self-employed people. Being a primordial Constitutional Right. Art. medical. 275 a. as far as practicable. ASSOCIATIONS. III sec. industrial and agricultural enterprises and In religious. and may thus be regulated.  To FORM UNIONS. be represented in decision and policy-making bodies of the government. 6 The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. 1973 Constitution Art. 2) The prohibition to issue labor injunctions is designed to give labor a comparable bargaining power with capital and must be liberally construed to that end.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations or administrative intervention. STATUTORY. rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their MUTUAL AID and PROTECTION. charitable. Towards this end. Notice that the word “union” is already included under the 1987 Constitution. Art. OR SOCIETIES » For purposes NOT contrary to LAW2  Shall NOT be abridged. intermittent and itinerant workers. 1. b Tripartism in labor relations is hereby declared a state policy. Thus. 243 Coverage and Employees Right to SelfOrganization – ALL persons employed in:  Commercial. or educational institution whether operating for profit or not. workers and employees shall. or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.LABOR CODE Art. 9. The scope of the right has also been recognized to include everyone from the private and public sector. TRIPARTISM Part II : RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION 2. 7 The right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.01 BASIS OF RIGHT The right to self-organization is granted to the employee by both the Constitution and by the Labor Code. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 7 of 139 .

Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations
educational institutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.

Art. 243 is a grant of general right. It is divided into two groups. 1st group: ALL persons employed in: commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institution whether operating for profit or not; granted the right to self-organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. 2nd group: Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers . The second group is granted the right to form labor organizations for their MUTUAL AID and PROTECTION. Nat’l Union of Bank Employees v. Minister of Labor (1981) A healthy respect for the freedom of association demands that acts imputable to officers or members be not easily visited with capital punishments against the association itself. 3. ILO CONVENTION NO.48 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (Nube) V. Confesor (2004) Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO) No. 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE to which the Philippines is a signatory, “workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to job organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.” Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 98 pertaining to the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining, provides:
Article 2 1. Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts or interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. 2. In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations within the meaning of this Article.

and Articles 248 and 249 respecting ULP of employers and labor organizations. The said ILO Conventions were ratified on December 29, 1953. However, even as early as the 1935 Constitution, the State had already expressly bestowed protection to labor as part of the general provisions. The 1973 Constitution, on the other hand, declared it as a policy of the state to afford protection to labor, specifying that the workers’ rights to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work would be assured. For its part, the 1987 Constitution, aside from making it a policy to “protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare,” devotes an entire section, emphasizing its mandate to afford protection to labor, and highlights “the principle of shared responsibility” between workers and employers to promote industrial peace.

2.02 EXTENT AND SCOPE OF RIGHT
ART. 246 Non-abridgment of right to self-organization – It shall be UNLAWFUL for any person  To restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to selforganization. Such right shall include the right:  To form, join or assist labor organizations » For the purpose of collective bargaining » Through representatives of their own choosing3 and  To engage in lawful concerted activities » For the same purpose or for their mutual aid and protection, » Subject to the provisions of Art 264 of this Code. EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION/ EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION: The right of Self-Organization includes the right not to exercise it.   BAR QUESTION (2000): Do workers have a right not to join a labor organization? MIDTERMS/ FINALS QUESTION: Is there a negative right of self-organization? - Yes

The aforcited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code, particularly in Article 243 thereof, which provides:
ART. 243. COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. – All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical or

Reyes v. Trajano (92) Logically, the right NOT to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization, is subsumed in the right
3

Take note: the italicized phrase is the policy behind certification of election

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
8 of 139

Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations
to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain from exercising said right. It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. The fact that a person has opted to acquire membership in a labor union does not preclude his subsequently opting to renounce such membership. A right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely: 1. First, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by law; 2. Second, power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association. It is therefore the employee who should decide for himself whether he should join or not an association; and should he choose to join, he himself makes up his mind as to which association he would join; and even after he has joined, he still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel his membership with said organization at any time. It is clear, therefore, that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any union The exercise of the right to self-organization includes the right to withdraw from the organization. Central Negros Electric Cooperative vs Sec of Labor (1991) In addition, membership in the cooperative is on a voluntary basis. Hence, withdrawal therefrom cannot be restricted unnecessarily. The right to join an organization necessarily includes the equivalent right not to join the same. The right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed. As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member-employees is an expression of their preference for union membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The right of self-organization includes the right to raise issues in behalf of the organization. Union of Supervisors v. Sec. Of Labor (1991) Moreover, Luna's remarks at the meeting of an official board are privileged in nature as a valid exercise of his constitutional freedom of expression. He addressed his remarks to the body that has jurisdiction over the question of management of the assets of the Provident Fund. Luna's remarks were intended to protect the interests of the members of the Provident Fund from what he honestly believed was a risky venture on the part of management. His protests could even be treated as union activity by the Industrial Peace Act, which assures the employees' right "to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection . . ." This is so because Luna's membership in the PF Board of Trustees was by virtue of his being president of the RB Union of Supervisors. The Provident Fund was itself created as a result of the union's collective bargaining agreement with the bank. His actuations as such should therefore be considered as legitimate exercise of the employees' right to self-organization and as an activity for their mutual aid and protection, aside from being privileged communication protected by the constitutional guarantee on free speech. His remarks were in defense of the interest of the Provident Fund, part of which comes from the contribution of the rank and file employees. The Certification Election is an example of the exercise of the right to self-organization.

2.03 WORKERS WITH RIGHT OF SELFORGANIZATION
Constitution, Art. III, Sec 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. 1. ALL EMPLOYEES, GENERALLY

Art. 243 Coverage and Employees Right to SelfOrganization – All persons Employed in  Commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and  In religious, charitable, medical, or educational institution  Whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right » To self-organization and » To form, join, or assist labor organizations ▪ Of their own choosing ▪ For purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. Take note: Ambulant -> Moving about, “palipat-lipat” Intermittent -> Temporary Itinerant -> Travels from place to place FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, Inc. v FEU-DNRMF Alliance of Fil Workers (1987) Under the Art. 244 LC, there is no doubt that rank and file employees of non-profit medical institutions are now permitted to form, organize or join labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective bargaining. MEMBERS OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division v Calleja (1988)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
9 of 139

Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations
HELD: In Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union, the refusal of the members of the INC sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs does not bar the members of the sect from forming their own union. The recognition of the tenets of the sect should not infringe on the basic right of self-organization granted by the Constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,  Effectively RECOMMENDS such managerial actions  If the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature  But requires the use of INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank and file employees for purposes of this book (Book 5: Labor Relations). Paper Industries Corp v. Laguesma (2000) HELD: United Pepsi cola ruling was adopted here: “Managerial employees are ranked as Top managers, Middle managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an organization. Under this distinction, “managerial employees” therefore fall in two (2) categories, namely,
1. The “managers” per se composed of Top and Middle Managers, and the 2. “supervisors” composed of First-Line Managers.

2.

GOVERNMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

Art 244 Right of Employees in the Public Service  Employees of government corporations ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE » shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers.  All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law.  The labor code is silent as to the right to strike of employees of GOCC’s established under the corporation code. But it expressly grants the right to collectively bargain and to organize.  The labor code is silent as to right to strike and bargain collectively of employees in the civil service. Anyway, the civil service employees are not under the coverage of the Labor Code. 3. SUPERVISORS

Art 245 Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees – Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Take note: “labor organization” is a term that is strictly defined – it should be for the purpose of collective bargaining concerning terms and conditions or dealing with employment concerning terms and condition of employment. Take note the law did not say that they cannot form an association, what the law said is that they cannot form a “labor organization” Supervisory employees shall:  NOT be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank and file employees but may join, assist or form SEPARATE labor organizations of their OWN. Art 212 m “Managerial employee” is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives:  To lay down and execute management policies and/ or  To hire , transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees.

Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated “manager” does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee. “In this case, a thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show that they are NOT actually managerial employees BUT ONLY supervisory employees SINCE THEY DO NOT LAY DOWN COMPANY POLICIES.” “PICOP’s contention that the subject section heads and managers exercise the authority to hire and fire is ambiguous and quiet misleading for the reason that any authority they exercise is NOT SUPREME but merely ADVISORY in character. Theirs is not a FINAL DETERMINATION of the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective superior.” “Thus, where such power, which is in effect RECOMMENDATORY in character, is SUBJECT TO EVALUATION, REVIEW, and FINAL ACTION by department heads and other higher executives of the company. The same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT as required by law.” Samson v. NLRC (2000) Given the environmental circumstances of this case, the acts of petitioner clearly do not constitute serious misconduct as to justify dismissal. Neither is his dismissal justified o the ground of loss of confidence. As a ground for dismissal, the term “trust and confidence” is restricted to managerial employees. Petitioner is not a managerial employee.” “It is the nature of the employee’s function and not the nomenclature or title given to his job, which determines whether he has rank-and-file,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
10 of 139

they are not entitled to overtime. the union members are supervisory employees. discharge. Article 245 of the Labor Code clearly provides that "supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rankand-file employees .  Corollary. . Members of the supervisory union might refuse to carry out disciplinary measures against their co-member rank and file employees. Etc. rest day and supervisory employees. however. Dunlop vs. therefore. The resolution of this issue depends on whether the respondent union is composed solely of supervisory employees or of both supervisory and rank-and-file employees." Supervisory Employees are managerial employees for the sake of Labor Standards. hence they are not entitled thereto. 212(m). petitioner cannot be considered a managerial employee despite his designation as District Sales Manager. may not be occupying managerial positions. or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests. What the law prohibits is a union whose membership comprises of supervisors merging with the rank and file employees because this is where conflict of interests may arise in the areas of discipline. Secretary of Labor (1998) Supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. an organization which carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization. National Sugar Refineries Corp v NLRC (1993) It is the submission of petitioner that while the members of respondent union. for purposes of forming and joining unions. as in the case at bar. Etc. suspend. the supervisors will be commingling with those employees whom they directly supervise in their own bargaining unit. but his job description. Public respondent gravely misappreciates the basic antipathy between the interest of supervisors and the interest of rank-and-file employees. For this reason. 245 faithfully carries out the intent of the Constitutional Commission in framing Art. collective bargaining. . collective bargaining and strikes. especially where.  In terms of working conditions and rest periods and entitlement to the questioned benefits. anterior to the granting of an order allowing a certification election. Laguesma (1998) Is Art." The TEST of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is:  Whether an employee possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer. as contemplated under Article 82 of the Code and Section 2. a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. certification elections. suspend. to inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code. Not being one.” Absent this crucial element. §8 of the fundamental law. transfer. III.” Fil-oil Refinery Corporation v. . It is not decisive that these employees are monthly paid employees. hence. including the right to file a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. they are officers or members of the managerial staff. but they are a distinct breed from managerial employees in relation to Labor Relations. 245 Constitutional? When read in relation to this definition in Art. Rule I Book III of the implementing rules. transfer. III. United Pepsi Cola v. lay-off. The critical issue. Article 212 (m) should be made to apply only to the provisions on Labor Relations. » Supervisors have the right to form their own union or labor organization.  Which authority should not be merely routinary or clerical in nature  But requires the use of independent judgment. discharge. Petitioner’s describes of his functions as District Sales Manager does not mention that petitioner possesses the power “to lay down policies nor to hire. and so forth. however. what determines the nature of employment is not the employee's title. recall. it is well settled that ‘IN RELATION TO HIS EMPLOYER.  Why can’t supervisors join a union of rankand-file? » The intent of the law is to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and file. CRUCIAL ELEMENT for one to be a managerial employee: “To lay down policies or to hire. §8 infringed by a UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 11 of 139 . is whether or not the respondent union can file a petition for certification election to represent the supervisory employees of the petitioner company. it will be seen that Art. lay-off.' a foreman or supervisor 'is an employee within the meaning of the Act' . Nor is the guarantee of organizational right in Art. Their mode of compensation is usually a matter of convenience and does not necessarily determine the nature and character of their job. while the right of said employees to the questioned benefits should be considered in the light of the meaning of a managerial employee and of the officers or members of the managerial staff. Fil-oil Supervisory & Confidential Employees Associaton (1972) ISSUE: WON supervisors form part of management and are not considered as employees entitled to bargain collectively? Indeed. .  In other words. as supervisors. recall. Due to the irreconcilability of their interests. It becomes necessary. they are clearly officers or members of the managerial staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and. supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities and any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an unfair labor practice.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations supervisory or managerial status. .

Take note: As stated in National Sugar Refineries Corp v NLRC. The implementing rules which disqualify security guards from joining rank and file organization are null and void for being not germane to the object and purposes of EO 111. assist or form any labor organization. And in any case.  The latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. form. It is subject to the police power of the State. Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. they are not deprived of the right to organize. Reciprocity: That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers 5.  Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank and file employees but may join. Just like any right. as well as to certain limitations. Jr. Secretary of Labor (1991) EO 111 has eliminated the disqualification of security guards from forming labor unions." NOTE: Art. But in that case. natural or juridical. Remember that the right to join. The right guaranteed in Art.  The Union can also become companydominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. as long as such is not a “labor organization”. while Art. 82). as well as the power to recommend any promotion and/or increase. It cannot be a labor organization which has a technical meaning of its own. Note: The manager’s right to self-organize is NOT removed. Art. but only limited." In the case of Art. BUT it does not prevent them for organizing for other purpose such as for mutual aid and protection. assist organization and associations should be exercised for purposes not contrary to law. Laguesma (2000) In Tabacalera. have no right to self organize for purpose of collective bargaining unless (the following must concur): a. III. we sustained the classification of a credit and collection supervisor by management as a managerial/supervisory personnel. As Justice Davide. as defined by law. it should be emphasized that the Managerial Employees may for any organization in accordance with law. Note: Aliens.. 245 a violation of the right to selforganization of managerial employees? No. » Provided. ALIENS WITH EMPLOYERS REGARDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 1. because if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union. generally. 245. In the present case. 245 LC Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization. as managers are considered employers under labor relations) and for the purpose of collective bargaining. further. however. however they are expressly prohibited from forming a “labor organization”. the mangers are not deprived of the right to organize and form associations for their mutual aid and protection. 212 is much narrower in scope and much more strictly construed. being composed of employees (which excludes managers. said " the rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be. At the pain of being repetitive. Such right is subject to legislative discretion as to the imposition of a limitation. petitioner failed to show that the employees in question were vested with similar powers. Is Art. They have valid permits b. They may now join a rank and file organization. himself a constitutional commissioner. exceptions –  All aliens. » Provided. 245 prohibit managerial employees to organize for purpose of collective bargaining. as well as foreign organizations are strictly PROHIBITED from engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities  Without prejudice to normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and recognized international labor centers. however. The disqualification in article 245 with regards to supervisory employees does not include security guards.04 WORKERS WITHOUT RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION FOR PURPOSE OF COLECTIVE BARGAINING OR DEALING UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 12 of 139 . right of supervisory employees—  Managerial employees are not eligible to join assist or form any labor organization." For this reason he was deemed to be a managerial employee. 4. The basis of this is the fiduciary and confidential relationship between manager and employer. SECURITY GUARDS Manila Electric vs. that aliens working in the country with VALID PERMITS issued the DOLE may exercise the right to selforganization and join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining . the credit and collection supervisor "had the power to recommend the hiring and appointment of his subordinates. At best they only had recommendatory powers subject to Art 269 Prohibition Against Aliens. The definition of a managerial employee in Labor relations (Art.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations ban against managerial employees forming a union. MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES AND CONFIDENTIAL Managerial employees are NOT eligible to join. §8 is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes "not contrary to law. 212) is NOT exactly the same as the definition under labor standards (Art. 2. assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. 82 is much broader in scope. Art. the right to SO is not an absolute right. there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming or joining labor organizations. That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers.

Assist or act in a confidential capacity. the keeping of records and files. or sections of a plant or an entire organization. The confidential-employee rule justifies exclusion of confidential employees because in the normal course of their duties they become aware of management policies relating to labor relations. Assist or act in a confidential capacity. and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee. Legal secretaries therefore fall under the category of confidential employees. The rationale: Because if these managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 13 of 139 . the disqualification of managerial employees equally applies to confidential employees. recall. and final decision by the bank's management. The two criteria are cumulative. the disposition of grievances. SMC Supervisors & Exempt Employees Union v. Roldan-Confesor (1995) As to the Foremen: Foremen are chief and often especially-trained workmen who work with and commonly are in charge of a group of employees in an industrial plant or in construction work. thus the coverage of its application and scope must necessarily be broad. become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule. They are representatives of the employermanagement with authority over particular groups of workers. review. they should be differentiated from rank-and-file employees because they. the limitation must strictly be construed and well justified. and that officer must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. discharge. However. Laguesma (1997) “Criteria to determine who are Confidential Employees:-1. (this means that the confidential nature of his job is not only incidental) 2. The two criteria are cumulative. “Management should not be required to handle labor matters through employees who are represented by the union with which the company is required to deliver and who in the performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the company’s position with regard to contract negotiations.” NOTE: “An employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning employer’s internal business operations and which is NOT RELATED to the field of labor relations. The job description forms submitted by petitioner clearly show that the union members in question may not transfer. are tasked with.” If access is merely incidental. in determining the confidentiality of certain employees. or other labor relations matter. Their work is basically routinary and clerical. It is the policy of the law to encourage selforganization. or discipline employees. and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. Accountants. Moreover. the forms also do not show that the Cashiers. From the foregoing functions. In the modern industrial plant.” “An important element of the “confidential employee rule” is --. assign.the employee’s need to use labor relations information. suspend. determine. determine. processes. However. under the doctrine of necessary implication. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union activities. Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees. PROHIBITION AND RATIONALE Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services Vs. and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee — that is. As to legal secretaries: Legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. memoranda and correspondence. Art. Thus if you have to limit it. and Acting Chiefs of the Loans Department formulate and execute management policies which are normally expected of management officers. the typing of legal documents. you cannot classify them as confidential employees. Thus. the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his superior officer. In the performance their work. operations. and effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor relations]. a key question frequently considered is the employee’s necessary access to confidential labor relations information. among others. They are the persons designated by the employer-management to direct the work of employees and to superintend and oversee them. it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern’s the employer’s internal business operations. foremen definitely use their independent judgment and are empowered to make recommendations for managerial action with respect to those employees under their control. lay-off. in the normal course of their duties. the giving of and receiving notices and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. RATIONALE: “The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who. they are at once a link in the chain of command and the bridge between the management and labor. in regard b. and cannot be part of rank-and-file unions. To persons who formulate.” “It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their functions.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations evaluation. Now may the said bank personnel be deemed confidential employees? Confidential employees are those who a. Thus a phone operator or driver cannot be classified as a confidential employee for the purpose of excluding them from joining a union.” The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests. To persons who formulate.

insofar as it involves cooperatives with employees who are NOT members or coowners thereof. a COOPERATIVE is an organization composed of small producers and of consumers who voluntarily join together to form business enterprises which they themselves.” “Finally. certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization. Sec. Even if not employees. v Calleja (1989) HELD: The employees of a cooperative may not join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Its owners or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative. Furthermore. They are merely tasked to report those who commit infractions against company rules and regulations. As for the timekeepers and assitant timekeepers: They are. Planters Bank General Services Employees Union v. An employee of such a cooperative who is a member AND CO-OWNER cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his coowners. control and patronize. Since the right to organize is constitutionally protected. . Collective bargaining in such a situation can become one-sided. Metrolab Industries.” Pepsi-Cola Proucts Phil. . It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. Roldan-Confesor (1996) Employees involved in the controversy include Executive Secretaries of the company’s officers. The fact the members-employees do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form. Can they join the labor union? NO. no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining and to be certified as bargaining agent can be recognized4. Inc. Therefore it is not discrimination to exclude them from bargaining unit of rank and file. managerial employees are supposed to be on the side of the employer. may become the source of undue advantage. Laguesma (1996) HELD: If union members are not employees. collective bargaining negotiations. thus warranting a separate category. the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form. They do not determine the fate of those who violate company policy rules and regulations function. persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. The Union can also become companydominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. It follows that they cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit. COOPERATIVE MEMBERS 4 Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao vs FerrerCalleja (1988) Under PD 175.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations Union the latter might not. what is entitled to protection is labor. However. v. Benguet Electric Cooperative. the nature of employment is quite distinct from the rank and file. The employer is not assured of such protection if these employees themselves are union members. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 14 of 139 . 3. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement. not involvement in the management thereof.” In the collective bargaining process. Inc. not the labor The latter are merely organization. and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country. This rationale holds true also for confidential employees who having access to confidential information. own. 2. By the very nature of their functions. An owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. As previously discussed. confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. Inc. to act as its representative. As members of the cooperative. they might jeopardize that interest which they are duty-bound to protect. they assist and act in a confidential capacity to. A cooperative is different from an ordinary business concern. be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. of Labor (1999) The confidential employees involved in this case are Credit & Collection Managers and Accounting Managers. Since the persons involved are not employees of the company. As such.’ It is not far fetched that in the course of collective bargaining. instrumentalities through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered. v.05 PARTY PROTECTED Mactan Workers Union vs Aboitiz (1972) The labor union who won as sole bargaining agent of the employees does not act for its members alone. assist or join a labor union equally applies to them. they are co-owners. neither managerial nor supervisory employees. NON-EMPLOYEE Rep. which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. they are confidential employees.” “Moreover. 2. and to see to it that its interest are well protected. they still have the right to organize BUT not for the purpose of collective bargaining. assist or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. This reportorial function is routinary and clerical. they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. or have access to confidential matters of. unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to act ‘in the interest of the employers.

including the demand for fee for union negotiations to ask for or accept negotiations or attorneys fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute. discharge. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers--It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a.06 SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHT Art. or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organization--It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. 246 Non-abridgment of the right to self-organization— It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain. I the nature of an exaction. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. 265 of this Code. d. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. ONLY the officers. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. f. To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with.5 c. Such right shall include the right to form. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. e. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment.discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or . for services which are not performed or not to be performed. 242 paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations 2. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. that the individual authorization required under Art. provided it is the representative of the employees. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. or To violate a collective bargaining agreement. to cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value. join or assist labor organizations for the purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose or for their mutual aid and protection. Art. dominate. However. b. subject to the provisions of Art. h. members of governing boards representatives or agents or members of labor organizations who have actually participated in. to cause or attempt to cause and employer to discriminate against an employee. discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. b. To initiate. Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. 288 Penalties— Except as otherwise provided in this Code. i. to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. d. f. To discriminate in regard to wages. or unless the acts complained of hinges on a 5 6 Yellow-dog contracting Company unionism UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 15 of 139 . Art. To interfere with. To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute. coerce. To dismiss. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization including giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. g. Art. associations or partnerships who have actually participated in. only the officers and agents of corporations.6 e.to terminate an employee on any ground other that the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members. to violate the duty. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement: Provided. To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs. agents or representatives: a. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. including . or to violate a collective bargaining agreement. its officers. c.

Art. then the unions themselves must be sufficiently strong and stable to be able to fulfill effectively their assigned role in society. any alien found guilty shall be summarily deported upon completion of service of sentence. 212 (f) Employee includes any person in the employ of an employer. 289 Who are liable when committed by other than natural person--If the offense is committed by a corporation. association or any other entity the penalty shall be imposed upon the GUILTY officer or officers of such corporation. duties and welfare. or imprisonment of not less that three months nor more than three years.000.000. Part III : LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 3. trust. partnership. COMPOSITION: EMPLOYEES Art. 212 (g) “LABOR ORGANIZATION” –Means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of:  Collective bargaining  or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 16 of 139 . 3. WORKER’S WORKER’S ORGANIZATION Composition: Employees Purpose: organized for mutual aid and protection of its members or for any other legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining  “Labor Organization” is a technical definition. Art. LABOR ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION LABOR ORGANIZATION Composition: Employees Purpose: collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. firm.  any violation of the provisions of this Code declared to be unlawful or penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of not less that P1. 211 Declaration of policy---It is the policy of the State: (g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights. partnership. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding any criminal offense punished in this Code shall be under the current jurisdiction of the Municipal or City Courts and the Courts of First Instance. it is composed of two parts: 1. (c) To foster the FREE and VOLUNTARY organization of a STRONG and UNITED labor movement  If labor unions are to serve and protect the interest of the workers.00. It is also incontrovertible that in such a regime of collective bargaining it is essential that the negotiations be conducted between parties of relatively equal strength.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations question of interpretation or implementation of ambiguous provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement. V.01 POLICY AND CONTEXT Art 211 Declaration of policy—It is the policy of the State: (b) To promote FREE Trade Unionism as an instrument for  The enhancement of DEMOCRACY and  The promotion of SOCIAL JUSTICE and development.00 nor more than P10. or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.  In addition to such penalty.02 LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. trust. firm. association or entity.

(i) Company Union means any labor organization whose formation function or administration has been assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice by this code. that the application should be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and ii. The requirements for registration are in Article 234. CIR RA 875 defines labor organization as any union or association which exists.. If the applicant union has been in existence for 1 or more years. DOLE REGISTRATION AS BASIS UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 17 of 139 . (h) Disini: A “branch or local” of a Legitimate Labor organization DOES NOT become a legitimate labor organization simply by affiliating itself. Cebu Seamen’s Assoc. Sec. There is no condition to the statutory concept of a labor organization as being limited to the employees. unless this Code explicitly states so. PURPOSE Collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. where there is an existing collective agreement duly submitted to the DOLE. for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges much less personality. Moreover. It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment. MIXED MEMBERSHIP Dunlop v. a. although not truly accredited agents of the union they purport to represent. Legitimate labor union means any labor organization duly registered with the Dept. Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines v. fraud. Art 212 (g) Labor organization means any union or association of employees which exist in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. Four (4) copies of the constitution and bylaws of the applicant union. the principal address of the labor org. P50 registration fee ii. that the application is filed during the last sixty (60) days of the agreement. 2. be accompanied by a sworn statement of the applicant union that there is no certified bargaining agent or. with the rights and privileges granted by the Labor Code including the release or custody of union dues. copies of its annual financial reports. The names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all the Ees of the bargaining unit it seeks to operate iv. Are these registration requirements a curtailment of the freedom to associate? NO. b. The names of its officers their addresses. of Labor (1992) Art 212 defines a legitimate labor organization as any labor organization duly registered with the DOLE and includes any branch or local thereof. oF Labor (1998) A labor Organization composed of both rank and file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. a labor organization acquires legitimacy ONLY upon registration with the BLR. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings iii. Inc v (1992) Ferrer-Calleja The union’s registration with the bureau and not the SEC makes it a legitimate labor organization. In the case at bar the said employees were dismissed and were challenging their dismissal. The right to self-organization is still limited to employees.” i. in whole or in part. “The applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to a legitimate labor organization UPON issuance of the certificate of registration based on the requirements in Article 234. minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members participating in it. RATIONALE: What is the purpose of the Law for requiring so many requirements? Registration is required to protect both labor and the public against abuses. section 4 of Rule II. Of Labor and Employment and includes any branch or local thereof  Progressive Dev’t v Sec. or impostors who pose as organizers. Ordinarily. These requirements are not restrictions on the freedom of assembly and of association. Rather they are merely conditions sine qua non for the acquisition of legal personality by a labor org and the possession of rights and privileges granted by law to a legit LO. Disini: Do not misinterpret the ruling in this case.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations   The term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer. It cannot posses the rights of a legitimate labor organization. The rules require certain requirements to avoid fraud. Book V of the Implementing Rules requires: i. which are mere statutory creations—for the  Disini: A company union is not really a “union” contemplated by law since it violates the provisions of Article 248. and v.

charter certificate within 30 days from its issuance by the national union. ii) The submission of officers’ addresses. See footnotes for pertinent provisions. No. some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements. constitution and By-laws. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 18 of 139 . RATIONALE: Undoubtedly. No. this case was decied on 1992) TAKE NOTE: Two types of union may become affiliated with a federation or a national union: 1) A local or chapter of a federation WHICH DID NOT undergo the rudiments of registration. Section 3. Because the issuance of a false statement and misrepresentation is a ground for cancellation of registration and is also a ground for criminal charges of perjury.O. 9. the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted to the BLR. the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization. c. BUT when an UNREGISTERED union becomes a branch. were not certified under oath by the secretary. Book V. the intent of the law is imposing lesser requirements in this case is to encourage the affiliation of a local union in order to increase the local union’s bargaining powers respecting term and conditions of labor. 212 h) such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with the aforementioned provisions of Section 3 (Under DO. the LO acquires legal personality and thereby becomes entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the law to a legit L. Such requirement is valid exercise of police power because the activities in which Los are engaged in affect public interest which should be protected. principal address of the labor organization the minutes of the organizational meetings. while attested to by the chapter’s president. 9. 234 for the registration of an independent union are OMTTED when it comes to registration of a local or chapter? i) The requirement that the application for registration must be signed by at least 20% of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. In the case at bar. RATIONALE: The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. Relevant portions are as follows: (Take note this part of the case is no longer seen in the amendments in the rules by DO. They likewise afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or to use the union for dubious ends. statement of the set of officers and books of accounts all of which must be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of such local chapter and attested by its president.  Does such defect (the constitution and by-laws were not certified under oath) warrant the withholding of the status of 7 Take note: This is not in the law. local or chapter of a federation. registration is required. Upon the approval of the application for registration. 9 which was promulgated on 1997. No. local or affiliate of a federation become a legitimate labor organization?7 A local or chapter therefore becomes a legitimate LO only upon submission of the following to the BLR: 1. legitimacy to the local or chapter? YES. The rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer. It is a fatal defect. but the applicable rules now are DO No. 2) An independently registered union may also be an affiliate of a federation or national union. The policy of the law in conferring greater bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy of providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud. The provisions governing UNION AFFILIATION are found in Rule II. 40-03 series of 2003. By force of law (Art. b. and attested to by the president is apparent. The employer would naturally need assurance that it is dealing with a bonafide organization. one which has not submitted false statements and misrepresentation to the BLR. and 2. Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements. Since there are lesser requirements for a local or a chapter. its is now Rule IV Book V section 1 & section 3)  What requirements imposed by Art. MAIN QUESTION of the case: When does a branch. the requirements in A 235 regarding certification under oath still has to be complied with.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations possession and exercise of which. as the case may be. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay these apprehensions of management. Although there are few requirements . The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. but only in the implementing rules. a. these requirement were present in DO. Implicit in the forgoing differentiation is the fact that a local or chapter need NOT BE independently registered. list of the workers who participated in such meetings iii) The submission of the minutes of the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by laws and the list of the members who participated in it.

the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status. DOLE Secretary (2005) Indeed. Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V.03 RATIONALE FOR RIGHT United Seaman’s Union v Davao Shipowners Assoc (1967) A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promoting the interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes.O. personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. Guijarno v. not a fatal defect. That is why it is given personality and recognition in concluding CBAs. may. CIR (1973) The state has an obligation to “afford protection to labor.It is the instrumentality by which the weak laborer up against the strong employer. The issuance of the certificate of registration evidently shows that FEU-IND has complied with the requirements of Art. Laguna Autoparts etc. a local or chapter need not be independently registered to acquire legal personality. through concerted effort and activity achieve the goal of economic well-being. Secretary of Labor(1997) The presentation of the Xerox copy of the certificate of registration to support its claim of being a duly registered labor organization instead of the submission of the original certificate is sufficient proof of its legitimacy. V. Effect of registration. or as a means to subvert valid commitments. Heirs of Cruz v CIR (1969) In the case at bar. Laguesma (1997) It is important to determine whether or not a particular labor organization is legitimate since legitimate labor organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised by nonlegitimate unions. Difference of an oath from an attestation is that in an oath. workers organized are strong. Upon compliance with all documentary requirements. the task of determining whether the local or chapter has submitted the complete documentary requirements is lodged with the Regional Office or UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 19 of 139 . But if it is made use of as a subterfuge. achieve economic well-being. the “constitution’s and by-laws 2. Furusawa v. 5. which states as follows: SEC. Unions are merely instrumentalities through which their welfare may be protected and fostered. 9 clearly states — SEC. The records of the case show that the respondent union submitted the said documents to Regional Office No.— The labor organization or workers’ association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its Such legal certificate of registration. who must be attended to.[21] Hence. Inc. 234 of the Labor Code. No. v. Statement of the set of officers 3. San Miguel Foods. While an attestation merely means that you have witnessed the fact of it. That is the raison d’être of labor unions. What is required to be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local’s president are: 1. you are in effect saying that all that is contained therein is true and it makes you liable for perjury. union officers entered into a compromise concerning backwages of As gleaned from the said provision. A charter certificate need NOT be certified under oath. 3. as the case may be. The books of accounts The charter certificate issued by the mother union need not be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local’s president. the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the local/chapter a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor organizations. as amended by D. finite human being. 3. it is nothing but the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. Certification proceeding is non-adversarial. RATIONALE: Where does that leave a labor union? Correctly understood. namely the promotion of social justice “to insure the well being and econmic security of the people…” It is then the individual employee. that the respondent union acquired a legal personality with the submission of the complete documentary requirement. as a separate.” xxx That is to carry out the purpose implicit in one of the five declared principles.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations In case at bar. Sec3. ISSUE: Is a CHARTER CERTIFICATE defective if it NOT certified under oath and attested to by the organization’s secretary and president? NO it is not defective. to raise the issue of the respondent union’s legal personality is not proper in this case.— A local/chapter constituted in accordance with Section 1 of this Rule shall acquire legal personality from the date of filing of the complete documents enumerated therein. When does a labor organization acquire legitimacy? Ordinarily a labor organization attains the status of legitimacy only upon the issuance in its name of a Certificate of Registration by DOLE. by concerted effort. for it tends to undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor. it defeats its own purpose. with his problems and his needs. Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V. technical rules do not apply. the BLR. Workers unorganized are weak. Acquisition of legal personality by local/chapter. He is the beneficiary of the concerns thus made manifest by the fundamental law. IV and was subsequently issued the following certificate: Such legal personality may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of assailing it. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employer may. The pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief. cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election. This is categorically prescribed by Section 5.

but it need not submit the same as a requirement for registration. a labor organization must still maintain books of account. which are mere statutory creations. and b. j. Proof of the affiliation of at least 10 locals or chapters -. 2.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations member-employees with the employer. The names of its officers their addresses. v. PRIOR to its amendment by DO No. For reporting purposes. (See Progressive case in preceding pages) Pagpalain Hauling Inc. set of officers and BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. Of LAbor The requirement of registration does NOT curtail the freedoms of assembly and association. of Book V provided that “the local or chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a constitution and by-laws. copies of its annual financial reports. ACTIONS OR DENIAL OF APPLICATION AND REMEDY Art 235 Action of application—The bureau shall act on all applications for registration within 30 days from filing. the procedure governing the reporting of independently registered union. All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the org as the case may be and attested to by its president. The requirement that books of account be submitted as a requisite for registration can be found only in Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor code. Sec. federations or national unions shall be observed. 237 Additional requirements for federations or national unions—subject to Art 238. Art. Pagpalain’s only recourse now is to have said order declared null and void. and e. If the applicant union has been in existence for 1 or more years. Four (4) copies of the constitution and bylaws of the applicant union. supporting the registration of such applicant federation or national union. l. The constitution does not guarantee these rights and privileges. Said freedoms may still be exercised with or without registration. EFFECT OF REGISTRATION ASSOCIATION ON 3. minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members participating in it. 241 b. Trajano (1999) The Labor Code DOES NOT require the submission of books of account in order for a labor organization to be registered as a legitimate labor organization. The employer may rely on the authority of the union to bring the union members especially in collective bargaining where the matters to be discussed are still to be observed but this case is an exception. the principal address of the labor org. The controlling intention in requiring the submission of books of accounts is the protection of labor through the minimization of the risk of fraud and diversion in the handling of union funds. 234 Requirements of Registration. g. The union is but an agent of the individual workers and it has the duty to inform the members of the labor matters entrusted to it. UNION REGISTRATION AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS Art.each of which must be a duly recognized collective bargaining agent in the establishment or industry in which operates. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 20 of 139 .04 LABOR UNION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION 1. 9 has done away with the submission of books of accounts as a requisite for registration. As provided by Article 241 h and 241 j.” Since Department Order No. 9 Series of 1997. 9 only dispenses with books of accounts as a requirement for registration of a local or chapter of a national union or federation. h. Art. Action of application—The bureau shall act on all applications for registration within 30 days from filing. P50 registration fee b. the names and addresses of the companies where the locals or chapters operate and the list o fall the members of each company involved. the old Section 3(e. I. In a compromise or settlement. Rule II. if the applicant for registration is a federation or a national union it shall. Authority for the union to waive this right to backwages must be express. (Example Art. Specifically. What is sought here are backwages and other benefits already earned. m.—Any applicant labor organization. The names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all the Ees of the bargaining unit it seeks to operate d. But this intention can still be realized through other provisions of the Labor Code. much less legal personality. Art 235 FREEDOM OF PAFLU v. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles submit the ff: a. the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings c. the individual union members are the real judgment creditors and are the real parties in interest. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor unions and the possessions of rights and privileges granted by law. association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of certificate of registration based on the ff requirements: a. 274) Department Order No.

Sugbuanon Rural Bank. Protection Technology v. shall be free from taxes. as may be inferred from his official statements in connection therewith. as required by law. Laguesma (2000) One of the rights of a legitimate labor organization under Article 242(b) of the Labor Code is the right to be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated. Umali v Lovina (1978) There is no lVawful reason for the respondent labor official to refuse the registration of the application of the petitioner’s union and permission to operate as a legitimate labor org. it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to so register the union. Secretary has neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins him to perform as a duty resulting from his office. Notwithstanding any provision of a general or special law to the contrary. 3. having been conducted and completed. aims. v. ordinarily. duties and other assessments. or objectives of Independent union do not tend “to undermine and destroy the constituted government or to violate any law or laws of the Philippines. 242 A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To acts as the REPRESENTATIVE of its members for the purpose of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. upon written request with the ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. the investigation to be conducted by him. Acedera vs. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the org as the case may be and attested to by its president." the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiter's Office so expressly states.” which is the only ground or reason for refusing the registration and permission to operate as a legitimate labor organization. Art. Purposes. Int’l Container Terminal Services. Of Labor (1995) The statutory and regulatory provisions defining the requirements of registration of legitimate labor organizations are an exercise of the overriding police power of the state designed for the protection of workers against potential abuses by unions and federations of unions that recruit them. (d) To OWN PROPERTY. for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its members. and (f) To undertake ALL activities designed to benefit the organization and its members including cooperative. provided for in sec 3 of CA 213. real or personal. Vassar Industries EEs Union v Estrella (1951) As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registration. or during the collective bargaining negotiation. Sec. While a party acting in a representative capacity. 236 Denial of registration. or within 60 calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 21 of 139 . (2003) A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. appeal---The decision of the Labor Relations Division in the regional office denying registration may be appealed by the applicant union to the Bureau within 10 days from receipt of notice thereof. a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him. which are actually. Art.Inc. endowments. including the balance sheets and the profit and loss statement. donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations. may be permitted to intervene in a case. after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees in the bargaining unit. (e) To SUE AND BE SUED in its registered name. the income and the properties of a legitimate labor organization. RIGHTS OF ORGANIZATION LEGITIMATE LABOR bargaining agreement.** (c) (c) To be furnished by the employer. directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes. A union must comply with all the requirements of registration as a legitimate labor organization before it may enjoy the fruits of its certification election victory and before it may exercise rights of a legitimate labor organization. It is the duty of the respondent to register the application and issue the permit upon payment of required fee. housing welfare and other projects not contrary to law. including grants.** (b) To be certified as the EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE of ALL THE EMPLOYEES (whether union member or not) in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. such as a union. gifts. Inc. within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request. The exemption provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this provision. local and foreign.

 The list of members. and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made. the registration of: 1) Any legitimate independent labor union. c. Art. RULE XIV: CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Section 1. d. the list of members who took part in the ratification b. Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within 30 days from adoption and ratification of const. it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. place and purpose of such payment. which shall state the date. national or industry unions and trade union centers. RA 6715) DO No. Section 2. the minutes of ratification. What the records instead reveal is that respondent union was initially assisted by ALU during its preliminary stages of organization. chartered local and workers' association may be cancelled by the Regional Director. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the org. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of registration of labor organizations: (a) Misrepresentation. Other than for mandatory activities under this code checking of special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members.  The minutes of ratification. e. Petitioner argues that giving due course to respondent union's petition for certification election would violate the separation of unions doctrine. Grounds for cancellation. and by-laws or amendments thereto.in connection with the adoption or ratification of the consti and by-laws or amendments thereto. (as amended by Sec 16. minutes of the election of officers. and by-laws or amendments thereto. CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION Art 238 The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor org whether national or local shall be  Canceled by the bureau  If it has reason to believe after due hearing that the said labor org no longer meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed. false statements or fraud . false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself. i. Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the Cabo system or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law/ Entering into CBAs w/c provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law.  Note that the petition was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP. – Any party-in-interest may commence a petition for cancellation of registration. who took part in the ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto.’s fees or negotiation fees from Ers. Section 3. Petitioner says that respondent union is a mere alter ego of ALU. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 22 of 139 . Failure to submit the annual financial report to the bureau within 30 days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation. Upon the filing of an independent complaint or petition for cancellation. Where to file. The records show nothing to this effect. Asking for or accepting atty. false statement or fraud . Art 241 (j) Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source. Misrepresentation. which can only be commenced by members of the labor organization concerned. 40-03 series of 2003 Rule I Sec. Who may file. 234. A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger national federation. – Subject to the requirements of notice and due process. f. the list of voters or failure to submit these documents together with/ the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within 30 days from election. the list of members who took part in the ratification of the const. the minutes of ratification. which is a national labor federation of with which respondent union is affiliated. a legitimate labor organization. and Failure to comply with requirements under Art 237 & 238. Article 257 of the Labor Code mandates that a certification election shall AUTOMATICALLY be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. or 2) In the case of federations.  It was not filed by ALU. g. 1: (g) "Cancellation Proceedings" refer to the legal process leading to the revocation of the legitimate status of a union or workers' association. j. Failure to submit list of individual members to the bureau once a year or whenever required by the bureau. Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union's registration. by the Bureau Director.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations Having complied with the requirements of Art. false statement or fraud in connection with:  The Adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. h. 4.in connection w/ the election of officers. Misrepresentation.  except in actions involving violations of Article 241.  Nor was it filed by TUCP. 239 Grounds for cancellation of union registration—the following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: a.

or upon Section 5. considering that the same generally solicits funds or membership. (h) Asking for or accepting attorney's fees or negotiation fees from the employer. The phrase “or otherwise engaged in any activity prohibited by law” should be construed to mean such activity engaged into by a union that partakes of the nature of a labor contractor or Cabo system. the BLR director should have first ruled on their admissibility. huge amounts of money due to them or to the organization. Later. However. false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report. (g) Commission of any of the acts enumerated under Article 241 of the Labor Code.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations The minutes of ratification. RULE XV: CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE REPORTORIAL REQUIREMENTS Section 1. (b) The procedures laid down in this Rule were complied with. and as applied in administrative proceedings. The latter (LRD) may cause the institution of the administrative process for cancellation of its   registration." and under Article 238 of the Labor Code. Such opportunity was denied petitioner in this case. When proper– Where a registered labor organization in the private sector  Failed to submit the reports required under Rule V  For five (5) consecutive years  Despite notices for compliance sent by the Labor Relations Division or the Bureau.  The list of voters. No registration of labor organization shall be cancelled administratively by the Bureau due to noncompliance with the reportorial requirements unless: (a) Non-compliance is for a continuous period of five (5) years. among others that it has 12 affiliates. as a condition for the noncancellation of a certificate of registration is reasonable regulation for the benefit of the members of the organization. (b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph  Within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. Tablante V. (c) Misrepresentation. in which case the petition shall be acted upon pursuant to the following Rule. without ruling on said offer and without setting the case for reception of petitioner's evidence. "the certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization. the Confederation of Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a petition for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate issued to ADFLO. (j) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or whenever required by the Bureau. false statements or fraud in connection with  The election of officers. the said official proceeded to render judgment affirming its earlier decision to cancel the registration of ADFLO. Section 4. Failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected or appointed officers and their postal address within thirty (30) days from election. is this a ground for cancellation of registration? No it is not.  Minutes of the election of officers. Laguesma ADFLO filed an application for registration as a national federation alleging. Article II of our Constitution. liberty or property without due process of law . Action on the petition. Sec Of Labor (1969) The obligation to submit FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. as well as oftentimes collects on behalf of its members. (e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system. Noriel 845 SCRA 738 (1978) If the union is engaged in an illegal strike. after due hearing. (k) Failure to comply with the requirements of registration prescribed under Rules III and IV. that the said labor UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 23 of 139 . or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law. (f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide for terms and conditions of employment  Below minimum standards established by law.  Provided that no petition for cancellation based on this ground may be granted unless supported by at least 30% of all the members of the respondent labor organization. (i) Other than for mandatory activities under the Labor Code. and (c) The labor organization concerned has not responded to any of the notices sent by the Bureau. This is a gross violation of petitioner's right to due process. . "no person shall be deprived of life. . Alliance of Democratic Labor Organization v. Conditions for administrative cancellation of certificate of registration. shall be cancelled by the Bureau if it has reason to believe. whether national or local. Illegal strike per se is legal. or its notices were returned unclaimed. an opportunity to explain one's side. . PAFLU V. upon its own initiative complaint filed by any party-in-interest. The list of members who took part in the ratification. Under Section 1. (d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days after the close of every fiscal year and misrepresentation. The First Issue: Due Process The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. checking off special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members.The petition shall be resolved by the Regional Director in accordance with Rule XI. unless the petition is based on paragraphs (d) and (j) of the foregoing section or non-compliance with the labor organization's reportorial obligations. After petitioner submitted its objections to the admission of the documentary evidence of CLASS.

conferences and institutes. Inc. given directly or indirectly to any Eer(s) org to support any activity or activities affecting trade unions. seminars. including the mandatory reporting of the amounts of the donations or grants the specific recipients thereof. education or communication. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which section reads: Sec. 7. COLLATERAL ATTACK Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club. Effect of registration. representation elections. further.  without prior permission by the Sec of Labor. grants. as well as foreign orgs are  strictly prohibited from engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without prejudice to normal contacts bet Phil labor unions and recognized international labor centers: 3. exceptions—All aliens. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union. group of workers or any auxiliary thereof. the projects or activities proposed to be supported. or assisting union conventions. false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code. 5. managing. formation and administration of labor orgs. its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. organizing. 8. o may exercise the right to self-org and join or assist labor orgs of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. or other forms of assistance. natural or juridical. A decision rendered without any hearing is null and void." The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. vs. credit unions and institutions engaged in research. org or entity may give The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation. however. and their duration. The Second Issue: Substantial Basis It will be noted that the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations never made any ruling on whether the exhibits submitted by CLASS were admissible in evidence. referenda. That aliens working in the country with valid PERMITS issued by the Dept of Labor and Employment. in relation to trade union activities. any donations. The labor organization or workers' association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. and the like: Provided. 5.(2003) After a certificate of registration is issued to a union. 270 Regulation of foreign assistance. in cash or in kind. Art. For without such registration. all forms of concerted union action. That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. o Provided. 241 UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 24 of 139 . teach-ins.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. the said exhibits cannot be made use of in deciding the case. directly or indirectly. (c) The Sec of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the giving and receiving of such donations.— (a) No foreign individual. it loses — as a rule — its rights under the Labor Code. meetings. other activities or actions analogous to foregoing. 5. such as cooperatives. consent elections. should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. 6. and 9.05 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION – PROHIBITION AND REGULATION Art.  Provided. any form of participation or involvement in representation proceedings. Art. negotiation and admin of collective bargaining agreements. rallies. to any labor org. rural workers. That being so. grants or other forms of assistance. 271 Applicability to farm tenants and rural workers— The provisions of this Title pertaining to foreign orgs and activities shall be deemed applicable likewise to all orgs of farm tenants. grants or other forms of assistance. in cash or in kind. “Trade union activities” shall mean: 4. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack. 269 Prohibition against aliens. The union. That in appropriate cases the Sec of Agrarian Reform shall exercise the powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in the Sec of Labor. having been validly issued a certificate of registration. (b) This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations. 3. but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. organization. union elections.06 UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS Art.

The rendering of such account shall be made: 1. No labor org shall knowingly admit as members or continue in membership any individual who belongs to a subversive org or who is engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive activity. No officer. K. RA 6715) D. unless the nature of the org or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical. At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of the org. to which they or their union is affiliated. after due deliberation. and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made. in which case the board of dir of the org may make the decision in behalf of the general membership.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations Rights and conditions of membership in a labor org—The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor org. 2. The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and representatives of all financial transactions s provided for in the constitution and bylaws of the org. F. RA 6715) Any action involving the funds of the org shall prescribe after three(3) years from the date of submission of the annual financial report to the Dept of Labor and Employ’t or from the date the same should have been submitted as required by law. E. Every payment of fees. disbursement. The members shall directly elect their officers. (as amended by Sec 16. B. Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source. Provided. that failure of any labor org to comply with the periodic financial reports required by law and such rules and regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the cancellation of union registration of such labor org. together with the appointive officers of agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor org. The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Sec of Labor. C. and 3. At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the close of its fiscal year. and by-laws. custody or control of the funds. shall render to the org and to its members a true and correct account of all moneys received and paid by him since he assumed office or since the last day on which he rendered such account. excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed. The funds of the org shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those expressly provided by its consti and bylaws or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the purpose. whichever comes earlier: Provided. M. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor org. including those of the national union or federation. The officers of any labor org shall not be paid any compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their positions as specifically provided for in its const. further. No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any position in the union. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 25 of 139 . or written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its const. That this provision shall apply only to a legit labor org which has submitted the financial report requirements under this Code. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the org. The minutes of the meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be subject to inspection by the Sec of Labor or his duly authorized representatives. I. The members shall determine by secret ballot. place and purpose of such payment. and by-laws. by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. dues. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the org. dues or other contributions by member shall be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the org to be kept and maintained for the purpose. The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any labor org shall be open to inspection by any officer or member thereof during office hours. ****(Isn’t this in conflict with second part of letter C) G. which shall state the date. The secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Sec of Labor and Employment with a list of the newlyelected officers. L. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of a legit labor org nor shall arbitrary. Upon vacating his office. The treasurer of any labor org and every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such org or for the collection. agent or member of a labor org shall collect any fees. management.( as amended by Sec 16. J. any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the org. H. moneys and other properties of the org. securities and other properties of the org entrusted to his custody or under his control.: A. and of all bonds.

Without respect for the CBL. The importance of a union’s constitution and by-laws cannot be overemphasized. EXCEPTION: However. O. and It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members on the provisions of its consti and by-laws.no special assessments. beginning on his first day of service. atty. UST Faculty Union v. or as closed-shop agreement. For this purpose. Membership in such groups is a matter of privilege. as long as they are not contrary to law. DISINI: GENERAL RULE: Labor union is a PRIVATE and voluntary organization. It is where the rights.including the list of all members present. P. The anomalies he brought out were all true. It is the organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any officer or member of the union. Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officer from office. powers. EXCEPTION: When union has access to employment. Bitonio (1999) The point to be stressed is that the union’s CBL is the fundamental law that governs the relationship between and among the members of the union. -. 249 (a) To restrain or coerce EEs in the exercise of their rights to self-org. Such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants. Company is not guilty of unfair labor practice. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor org -.’s fees. a labor org shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. this general rule does not apply to the case of LABOR UNIONS HOLDING MONOPOLY IN THE SUPPLY LABOR whether in a given locality. NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP Heirs of Cruz v CIR The union is but an AGENT of the individual workers and it has the duty to inform the members of the labor matters entrusted to it. Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and conditions of membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty. They embody a covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamental law governing members’ rights and obligations. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. However. Salunga is entitled to reinstatement. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. Salunga is not guilty of disloyalty. The closed-shop or maintenance of membership conditions cause the admission and discipline requirements of the Union to become affected with public interest. collective bargaining agreement. The employer may rely on the authority of the union to bring the union members especially in collective bargaining where the matters to be discussed are still to be observed but this case is an exception. 2. . 277 Any EE. If unions may be compelled to admit new members who have the requisite qualifications. functions and authority of the officers as well as the members are defined. 1. be considered an EE for purposes of membership in any labor union.The authorization should specifically state the amount. negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee -without an individual written authorization duly signed by the Ee. the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. Furthermore. example: closed-shop agreement. duties and obligations. Art. whether employed for a definite period or not. ISSUES ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS Art. Salunga v CIR (1967) GENERAL RULE: Court cannot compel voluntary associations to admit thereto a particular individual/s.The secretary of the org shall record the minutes of the meeting -.unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members of a -. which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. At least thirty (30%) of all members of a union or any member or members specially concerned may report such violation to the Bureau. was impelled to tender his resignation.general membership meeting -. -. registered labor orgs may assess reasonable dues to finance labor relations seminars and other labor education activities.. -. shall. or public policy. who owing to provocations of union officers. whichever is appropriate. good morals.duly called for the purpose. the union’s constitution and by-laws should be upheld. with more reason may the courts exercise their coercive power when the employee involved is a long-standing union member. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 26 of 139 .Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations N.The record shall be attested to b the president. As such. a union as a democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob rule. the votes cast. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees.

by-laws and rules of the parent body. PAFLU acted when. constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the subordinate union. They forfeit their rights to remain as members. only members of the union can participate in the election of union officers. Under Article 242. The question of eligibility to vote may be determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable payroll period---the payroll of the month next preceding the labor dispute in case of regular employees and the payroll period at or near the peak of operations in case of employees in seasonal industries. which is the process of determining. together with the appointive officers of agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or from the occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor org. Interval of 5 years TENURE: 5 years COMPENSATION: Generally none. RA 6715) MANNER (f) No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any position in the union. or written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations This converts union into one with a public character and thus the government will have a right to inquire into the rules or business of the union. QUALIFICATON: Member in good standing Not convicted of crime of moral turpitude MANNER OF ELECTION: Secret Ballot.( as amended by Sec 16. VOTERS LIST Tancinco vs Calleja (1988) Submission of the employees names with the BLR as qualified members of the union is not a condition sine qua non to enable said members to vote in the election of union’s officers. Bugay was charged by union officers of disloyalty and was terminated from union membership. Bitonio (1999) A union election is held pursuant to the union’s constitution and by-laws and the right to vote in it is enjoyed ONLY BY UNION MEMBERS. after proper investigation and finding of guilt. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the org. It becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union functions. UST Faculty v. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 27 of 139 . to which they or their union is affiliated. there being indication of bad faith on the part of its officers. (k) The officers of any labor org shall not be paid any compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their positions as specifically provided for in its consti and by-laws. When they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong. including those of the national union or federation. Direct election. DUE PROCESS RULES Bugay v Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Manila Railrd (1962) The union claims that he cannot claim such. it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization. the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. In this case. it decided to remove the oppositors from the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU. Considering that none of the parties insisted on the use of the payroll period-list as voting list and considering that the 51 remaining employees were correctly ruled to be qualified for membership. They must be considered ipso facto members. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor org. TENURE AND COMPENSATION Art 241 (c) The members shall directly elect their officers. They failed to give notice or to summons Bugay. through secret ballot. OF ELECTION. Such claims could not have been included in the case before the CIR as it was not within its jurisdiction. But allowed if the constitution or by-laws allow it.  by secret ballot  at intervals of five (5) years. A union election should be distinguished from a certification election. The minutes of the meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be subject to inspection by the Sec of Labor or his duly authorized representatives. their act of joining the election by casting their votes is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union. When members of a labor union sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union. Bugay was NOT present in ANY of the investigations. The Court rules otherwise. ELECTION OF OFFICERS---QUALIFICATIONS. The constitution. And yet the investigations pushed through. as he was subject to humiliation and mental anguish with the consequent loss of his good name and reputation. Case remanded. for purpose of collective bargaining. as the findings were based solely on procedural defects. together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union. RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE Villar v Inciong (1983) When a labor union affiliates with a mother union. Case remanded. The secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Sec of Labor and Employ’t with a list of the newly-elected officers. or a written resolution by a majority of all the union members in a general membership meeting called for that purpose.

EXPULSION REMEDY Kapisanan vs Trajano (1985) If herein union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed. a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said election. and not call for a referendum to decide the issue. Lastly. Furthermore. as prayed for. No officer. Therefore. b. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. the candidates of Manalad certainly cannot be declared as the winners in the disputed election. Undue haste. HOWEVER. in the affirmative case. Every payment of fees. Results would obviously have been affected by the ballots of the 2. and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made.  Unless the nature of the org or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical. thus attended the elections. i. dues or other contributions by member shall be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the org to be kept and maintained for the purpose. and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct. an employee belonging to an appropriate unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union election. it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character.  In which case the board of director of the org may make the decision in behalf of the general membership. unless the nature of the organization or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical. Court will respect the will of the majority of the workers who voted Where the people have elected a man to office. BLR pursuant to Article 242 should have meted out the appropriate penalty on them. if he had been guilty of any. The mere fact that they obtained the second highest number of votes does not mean that they will thereby be considered as the elected officers. When the people have elected a man to office. agent or member of a labor org shall collect any fees. The allegations of falsification and misrepresentation of union officers were not supported by substantial evidence. any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the org. the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and. DISQUALIFICATION CANDIDATE Manalad vs Trajano (1989) Babula disqualified from running for certain reasons not mentioned in the case. any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the organization. g . which shall UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 28 of 139 . Halili v CIR (1985) Retainer’s contract was not a contract with the general membership. A record-breaking voter turnout of 73%. holding of the referendum has become moot and academic. Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. and absence of notice of the dates of balloting. 241 Rights and conditions of membership in a labor org. to expel them from the Union. The elections were closely contested. after due deliberation. ALL employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote.e. 241 d The members shall determine by secret ballot. The expenditures appeared to have been made in good faith. it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character. i. The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and representatives of all financial transactions is provided for in the constitution and by-laws of the org. by which particular labor organization. The dates for provincial elections were set but they were in fact held on another date without prior notice to all voting members.—The following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor org. if he had been guilty of any. cannot purge the elections of their grave infirmities. UNLESS otherwise authorized by the constitution and by-laws. even if the disqualification of Babula et al could be justified. Free and honest elections are indispensable to the enjoyment by employees and workers of their constitutionally protected right to self-organization. the reverse is not always true. dues. Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source.. and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct. The funds of the org shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those expressly provided by its consti and by-laws or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the purpose. h.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations Specifically. and without ground rules duly prescribed. This violates A242 (d) of the Labor Code which provides: The members shall determine by secret ballot. j. lack of adequate safeguards to ensure integrity of the voting. rendering the elections invalid. ELECTION ISSUES Rodriguez vs Director (1988) General elections were attended by grave irregularities. after due deliberation. or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its consti and by-laws. MAJOR POLICY MATTERS Art.056 voters who had been unable to cast their votes because of lack of notice of actual dates of the elections. in which case the board of directors of the organization may make the decision in behalf of the general membership. In a certification election. UNION FUNDS  How are union funds protected? Art.

agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the Ee. Although the attorney’s fees were a mere incident. Art. The authorization should specifically state the amount. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor org unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. Duyag et al are entitled to the refund of the union dues illegally collected from them. and 3. 222 Appearances and fees---a) Non-lawyers may appear before he Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: 1. Presidential executive assistant had no jurisdiction to make such adjudication on the attorney’s fees. EXAMINATION OF BOOKS Duyag v Inciong (1980) Membership of Manalad and Puerto in another union is a sufficient ground for their removal under the constitution and by-laws of the union. n. securities and other properties of the organization entrusted to his custody or under his control. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees. negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. Puerto and Leaño violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within the meaning of article 242. place and purpose of such payment. b) No attorney’s fees. The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such organization for the collection. Upon vacating his office. If they represent their organization or members thereof. RA 6715) l. The P14M constitutes the money of the Ees. There is no doubt that the lawyer is entitled to his fees but Art 222 ordains that such must come from the Union funds. At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of the organization. Provided. The secretary of the org shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present. 241 (n)] Pacific Banking v Clave (!984) Art 222 guarantees the protection of the Ee against unwarranted practices that would diminish his compensation without his knowledge and consent. His organization of a family-owned corporation competing with the union headed by him renders it untenable that he should remain as union president. After hearing and even without submitting the matter to the union members. management. Art 274 Visitorial Power. however.’s fees. m. The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor. and of all bonds. being a “political question”. –The Sec of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative is hereby empowered to inquire into the financial activities of legitimate labor orgs upon filing of a complaint under oath and duly supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) per cent of the total membership of the labor org concerned an to examine their books of accounts and other records to determine compliance or noncompliance with the law and the union consti and by-laws. no special assessments. [Cf. Provided. erring union officials may be removed by the Director of Labor Relations as clearly provided in article 242.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations state the date. shall render to the organization and to its members a true and correct account of all moneys received and paid by him since the last day on which he rendered such account. If they represent themselves. Case was appealed to the OPRES with respect to the CBA terms and conditions. Manalad. The record shall be attested to b the president. o. disbursement. At least once a year within 30 days after the close of its fiscal year. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the org. The labor officials should not hesitate to enforce strictly the law and regulations governing trade unions even if UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 29 of 139 . The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any labor org shall be open to inspection by any officer or member thereof during office hours. custody or control of the funds. Thus. moneys and other properties of the organization. or 2. but from the existing funds of the union. atty. the atty. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. That attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 2. The Director should apply the law and not make policy considerations. SOURCE – PAYMENT – ATTORNEY’S FEES Art. fixing of the same was outside Presidential executive assistant’s appellate jurisdiction. The Director of Labor Relations erred in holding that tenure of union officers.. it is not union funds. the votes cast. The rendering of such account shall be made: 1.’s fees should not be deducted from the P14M. Any contract. is a matter outside his Bureau’s jurisdiction and should be passed upon by the union members themselves. Furthermore. (as amended by Sec 16. That such inquiry or examination shall not be conducted during the sixty (60)-day freedom period nor within the thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of election of union officials.

If they represent their organization or members thereof. The last stated purpose fall under Art. atty.” It is an exaction which falls within the category of a “similar charge. consultants and others may not be in the category of “attorney’s fees or negotiations fees. It must be discontinued.” and within the coverage of the prohibition. Employees’ express consent is required. Secretary of the organization must record the minutes of the meeting which. Of Labor (2000) Art. Under par (n). Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the books and records of the union. It submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is required is a written resolution adopted at the general meeting. The resolution increasing the union dues must be struck down. Only the collection of a special fund for labor and education research is mandated. 241 has three requisites for the validity of the special assessment for the unions incidental expenses: 1) Authorization by written resolution of majority of ALL the members at the general membership meeting called for that purpose 2) Secretary’s record of the minutes of the meetings attested to by the president. 241 n. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. A withdrawal of individual authorizations is equivalent to no authorization at all. The minutes contained no list of the members present and no record of the votes cast. BIR (1989) Old union officers increased union dues from P21-P50. Art. Calleja (1990) HELD: Deduction of the 10% special assessment by the Union was not made in accordance with the requirements provided by law. Resolution of the union’s Legislative Council does not bear the signature of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Council. agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. Art. Any contract. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees. Par. negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an individual written authorization duly signed by the Ee. However. There can be no valid check-off considering that the majority of the union members had already withdrawn their individual authorizations. Palacol v. purchase of vehicles and other items for the benefit of the union officers and the general membership. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 30 of 139 . UNION DUES Rodriguez v Director. (o) requires an individual written authorization duly signed by every employee in order that a special assessment may be validly checked-off. The dues improperly collected must be refunded. arbitrary and oppressive. The resolution was presented to the general membership for ratification at a referendum. as illegal and void. 222 Appearances and Fees. No attorney’s fees. 222(b) prohibits attorney’s fees. negotiations fees and similar charges arising out of the conclusion of a collective bargaining agreement from being imposed on any individual union member. Proof is wanting of proper ratification of the resolution by a majority of the general union membership at a plebiscite called and conducted for that purpose. b. Substantial compliance is not enough. Gabriel v. the votes cast. that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. There is nothing in the law which requires that the disauthorization must be in individual form. Union held local membership meetings on separate occasions. or 2. The collection of the special assessment partly for the payment for services rendered by union officers. on different dates and at various venues. the Union must submit to the Company a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. Minutes of 3 of those local meetings held were recorded by a union director and not by the union secretary. Documents containing the disauthorizations have the signatures of the union members. must include the list of all the members present as well as the votes cast. o.’s fees. and the payment of services rendered by union officers should be supported by the regular union dues. The authorization should specifically state the amount. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor org unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. and must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law. no special assessments. negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided. in turn. a. 222(b). The two other purposes. If they represent themselves. SOURCE – PAYMENT – SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Art.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations that course of action would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference. Sec. The secretary of the org shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present. Labor officials should be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs. The record shall be attested to b the president. Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: 1. there being no showing that the latter are not sufficient to cover the same. Those who protested boycotted the referendum but nevertheless union officers declared the increase ratified by the referendum.

In Palacol. attys fees. Benjamin Sebastian was instrumental in forging the said agreement on behalf of the union members. the deduction of the stipulated 5% of the total economic benefits under the new CBA was applied only to workers who gave their individual signed authorizations. DEFINITION OF MANDATORY ACTIVITIES: Judicial process of settling disputes laid down by the law. negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an EE w/o an individual written authorization duly signed by the EE. 222. Amicable settlements cannot be considered as a mandatory activity. Vengco v Trajano (1989) HELD: Attorney’s fees may not be deducted or checked off from any amount due to an employee without his written consent except for mandatory activities under the Code. 1991. Amicable settlement entered into by the management and the union can not be considered as a mandatory activity. holding that the validity of the five percent (5%) special assessment for attorney's fees is contrary to Art. In this case. we find that the 3 requisites for the validity of the 10% special assessment for Union's incidental expenses. as amended. as amended. impugned the Order of the NLRC. whereat it was agreed that a 10% special assessment from the total economic package due to every member would be checked-off to cover expenses for negotiation. 1989. The Court explained: And significantly. other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's fees. the Union held its general meeting. It is not also shown that Atty. The court ratiocinated. so find.000. par(b) of the Labor Code. However. the majority of the Union members gave their individual written check-off authorizations for the 10% special assessment. There is then. Law allows a deduction for attorney’s fees of 10% from the total amount due to a winning party. On May 24. 222. The authorization should specifically state the amount. P. contemplates a general meeting after the conclusion of the CBA." 85 members of the same Union executed individual written authorizations for check-off. the presumption that such check-off authorizations were executed voluntarily by the signatories thereto. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Union's Secretary and noted by its President. the same must be shared by all the members until this is fully liquidated. The purpose of the provision is to prevent imposition on the workers of the duty to individually contribute their respective shares in the fee to be paid the attorney for his services on behalf of the union in its negotiations with the management.00. that the ruling in BPIEU-ALU vs. applies to the case under consideration. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. Premises studiedly considered." The inapplicability of Palacol lies in the fact that it has a different factual milieu from the present case. Subject Article does not state that the general membership meeting should be called after the conclusion of a CBA. A mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of settling dispute laid down by the law. the public respondent overlooked the fact that in the said case. No similar deductions were taken from the other workers who did not sign the resolution and so were not bound by it. NLRC that 1) the prohibition against attorney's fees in Art. and ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members V. Pascual the amount of P500. we are of the irresistable conclusion and.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations 3) Individual written authorization for checkoff duly signed by the employees concerned. Allowances are benefits over and above the basic salaries of the employees. par (b) of the Labor Code applies only when the payment of attorney's fees is effected through forced contributions from the workers. MANDATORY ACTIVITY Art 241(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. the authorized deduction affected only the workers who adopted and signed the resolution and who were the only ones from whose benefits the deductions were made by BPI. Such allowances are excluded from the concept of salaries or wages. and 2) that no deductions must be taken from the workers who did not sign the checkoff authorization. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp (1999) After a thorough review of the records on hand. attorney's fees and representation expenses were met. the check-off UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 31 of 139 . Union filed a claim for emergency cost of living allowance and other benefits however. Fringe benefits received by the union members consist of back payments of their unpaid emergency cost of living allowances which are totally distinct from their wages. Petitioners further contend that Article 241 (n) of the Labor Code. In BPIEU-ALU. authorization was declared invalid because majority of the Union members had withdrawn their individual authorizations. case never reached its conclusion in view of the parties’ agreement. the petitioners. thus: "The Court reads the aforecited provision as prohibiting the payment of attorney's fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from the workers from their own funds a distinguished from the union funds. wherein majority of the members agreed that "in as much as the Union had already paid Atty. This provision envisions a situation where there is a judicial or administrative proceedings for recovery of wages. on special assessments. said Union held its General Membership Meeting. It can be gleaned that on July 14. no special assessments. And they have never withdraw their individual written authorizations for check-off. Penalty of expulsion from the union presidency imposed upon Timbungco is justified.

Prescription. the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. Article 222 (b) does not except a CBA. Instead. UNION INFORMATION Art. A request for examination of books of accounts of federations or national unions and trade union centers pursuant to Article 274  Shall be filed with the Bureau.The complaint or petition for audit or examination of funds and book of accounts shall prescribe  Within three (3) years from the date of submission of the annual financial report to the Department or UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 32 of 139 . . last paragraph Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and conditions of membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. later placed under compulsory arbitration. Section 4. Such examination shall be made upon the filing of a request or complaint for the conduct of an accounts examination by  Any member of the labor organization. Employees are vigorously objecting.A request for examination of books of accounts of independent labor unions.The Regional or Bureau Director may inquire into  The financial activities of any legitimate labor organization and  Examine their books of accounts and  Other records To determine compliance with the law and the organization's constitution and by-laws. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. The union members engaged in a lock-out and strike. Such request or complaint.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations CBA NEGOTIATIONS Galvadores v Trajano (1986) HELD: No check-offs from any amounts due employees may be effected without individual written authorizations duly signed by the employees specifically stating the amount. The strikers did violate the nostrike policy.  Shall not be treated as an intra-union dispute and  The appointment of an Audit Examiner by the Regional or Bureau Director shall not be appealable. collective bargaining agreement. It is a judicial process of settling disputes laid down by law. Section 3. Even assuming not engaged in a vital industry. Any complaint or petition with allegations of mishandling. chartered locals and workers associations pursuant to Article 274  Shall be filed with the Regional Office that issued its certificate of registration or certificate of creation of chartered local. Besides. Any violation of the above rights and conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of an officer from office. The issue concerned merely the implementation of an arbitration award of the NLRC. It is within the power of the NLRC to order the removal of the officers. It shall be heard and resolved  By the Med-Arbiter provisions of Rule XI. Officers had the duty to guide their members to respect the law. it shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members on provisions of the constitution and by-laws. 241(p) It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members on the provisions of its constitution and by-laws. They repeatedly defied the orders of the Director of Labor Relations. This is not the “mandatory activity” under the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations for check-offs. Their (the officers) dismissal from the service is a just penalty. 242. Actions arising from Article 241. Continental Cement Corp (1990) Company was engaged in the manufacture of cement which is a vital industry in which a strike or lockout is prohibited. Benefits awarded to PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining negotiations although placed already under compulsory arbitration. pursuant to the Section 5. Visitorial power under Article 274. they urged them to violate the law and defy the duly constituted authorities. in the absence of allegations pertaining to a violation of Article 241. Union had a remedy by applying for a writ of execution to enforce that award. Their responsibility is greater than that of the members. . . ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES – PROCEDURE AND SANCTIONS Art. Continental Cement Corp Labor Union v. collective bargaining agreement. The required individual authorizations are wanting. It was not in connection with any unresolved economic issue in collective bargaining which is the only ground for which a lawful strike can be held as found in Section 7 of the Rules and Regulations implementing PD 823. Department Order No. In Art. The officers misinformed the members and led them into staging an illegal strike. misappropriation or non-accounting of funds in violation of Article 241  Shall be treated as an intra-union dispute. from the ambit of its prohibition. 40-03 Series of 2003 RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM Section 2.  Supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of its total membership. Where to file. 241. the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. the strike was illegal.

When they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong. and attested to by its President. aprticularly where the property rights of the members are involved. They forfeit their rights to remain as members. The constitution and by-laws of the union provide that charges for any violations thereof shall be filed before the said board. redress must first be sought within the union itself in accordance with the constitution and by-laws. (d) the certificate of affiliation issued by the federation in favor of the independently registered labor union.A labor union and workers' association shall be issued a certificate of registration upon payment of the prescribed registration fee. . Payment of registration fee. Section 8. 8 From Azucena vol. NLRC (1999) The mother union. Effect of registration.07 UNION AFFILIATION: LOCAL AND PARENT UNION RELATIONS DO No. after proper investigation and finding of guilt. by-laws and rules of the parent body. or would be illusory or vain. AFFILIATION: PURPOSE OF. NATURE OF RELATIONS Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation v. some of who were members of the board of directors. RULE IV PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION Section 1. JURISDICTION – EXHAUSTION INTERNAL REMEDIES Villar v Inciong (1983) PAFLU had the authority to investigate Villar et al. REMEDY Relief within the union8 Generally. Section 2. (Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR v. Requirements of affiliation. (c) the total number of members comprising the labor union and the names of members who approved the affiliation. had the status of an agent while the local remained the basic unit of the association. and not by way of collateral attack in petition for certification election proceedings under Rule VIII. Such legal personality may be questioned only through an independent petition for cancellation of union registration in accordance with Rule XIV of these Rules. Exhaustion of remedies here would amount to denial of justice. In the case at bar. it will not be insisted upon. It becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union functions. Hernandez. as a condition to the right to invoke the aid of the court. as the case may be. merger. 3. 40-03 Series of 2003 RULE III REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Section 7. Attestation requirements. constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the subordinate union. whichever comes earlier. (b) minutes of the general membership meeting approving the affiliation. Exception: 1) Futility of intra-union remedies 2) Improper expulsion procedure 3) Undue delay in appeal as to constitute substantial injutsice 4) When the action is for damages 5) Lack of jurisdiction of investigatin body 6) When the action of the administrative agency is patently illegal. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR v. together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union. Hernandez (20 SCRA 109) Where the exhaustion of remedies within the union itslef would practically amount to a denial of justice. . free to serve the common interest of all its members subject only to restraints imposed by the constitution and by the by-laws of the association.The application for registration of labor unions and workers' associations. and (e) written notice to the employer concerned if the affiliating union is the incumbent bargaining agent. II page 157 UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 33 of 139 . . consolidation and affiliation including all the accompanying documents. it decided to remove the oppositors from the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU.  shall be certified under oath by its Secretary or Treasurer.The report of affiliation of independently registered labor unions with a federation or national union shall be accompanied by the following documents: (a) resolution of the labor union's board of directors approving the affiliation. . arbitrary and oppresive 7) When the issue involved is purely a question of law 8) Where the administrative agtency has already prejudged the case 9) Where the administrative agency was practically given the oppurtunity to act on the case but did not. When a labor union affiliates with a mother union. 1. it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations  From the date the same should have been submitted as required by law. When members of a labor union sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union. 20 SCRA 109). notice for change of name. acting for and in behalf of its affiliate. the complaint was filed against the union and it incumbent officer. PAFLU acted when.The labor union or workers' association shall be deemed registered and vested with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration or certificate of creation of chartered local. The constitution.

Adamson v CIR (1984) Whether or not a supervisor's union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank-and-file employees of the same employer are also affiliated? Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of employees under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. They are separately and independently registered of each other. have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger national federation. free to serve their own and the common interest of all. Salesmen Association (FFW). UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 34 of 139 . Laguesma (2000) Locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital. The right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Sugbuanon Rural Bank v. Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson. The national federation would be representing the respective interests of the 2 groups separately. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Tropical Hut (1990) The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federaton is well-settled. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with their employer. Samahan (1996) A local labor union is a separate and distinct unit primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power and their employeemembers. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Locals remain the basic units of association. SUPERVISOR – RANK AND FILE UNION AFFILIATION RULE-AFFILIATION Atlas Lithographic v Laguesma (1992) The definition of managerial employees is limited to those having authority to hire and fire while those who only recommend effectively the hiring and firing or transfers of personnel would be considered as closer to rank and file employees. neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. Association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. RATIONALE: De la Salle Med v. Locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employeemembers. A local union. 3. Laguesma (1998) The affiliation of 2 local unions in a company with the same national federation is not by itself a negation of their independence since in relation to an employer. What the law prohibits is that supervisory employees join a rank and file union. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations The same is true even if the local is not a legitimate labor organization. supervisory employees. therefor. It only gives rise to a contract fo agency where the former acts in representation of the latter. being a separate and voluntary association. It can’t be construed that personalities of the 3 unions are so merged with the mother federation that for one difference or another they cannot pursue their own ways. of middle level executives from the category of management employees brought about a third classification. A local union. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality. This right is consistent with the 2. There is nothing in Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union loses its legal personality. is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. Alliance v. The exclusion. Tropical Hut v. Inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. the local unions are considered as the principal. or its independence. A local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank and file employees. while the federation is deemed as the be merely an agent. LOCAL UNION DISAFFILIATION NATURE RIGHT DISAFFILIATION Volkschel Labor Union v BLR (1985) HELD: Right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. who are allowed to form their own union but are not allowed to join the rank and file union due to conflicts in interest. Inc. independently of the federation. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members.. The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a separate organization of their own. being a SEPARATE and VOLUNTARY association. is free to serve the interest of all its mebers including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated.

it was but a natural act of self-preservation that Ferrer et al. The CBA contained a union security clause. The intra-union controversy was such that petitioners even requested the FFW to intervene to facilitate the enforcement of the said wage increase. There is then the incontrovertible right of any individual to join an organization of his choice. Parenthetically. the federation to which it belonged. Due to union politics. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 35 of 139 . Thus. fled to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and the OFC had tried to terminate their employment. SAMAHAN asked OFC to expel Ferrer. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation's constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union. is free to serve the interests of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation to which it belongs when circumstances warrant. The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union or a federation is to increase by collective action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. considering the peculiar facts of the case. being a separate and voluntary association. It is implicit in the freedom of association explicitly ordained by the Constitution. Good policy and equity demand that when an agreement is renegotiated before the appointed 60-day period. not to dismember them. Valid reason for disaffiliation: The disaffiliation was not due to any opportunist’s motives but rather it was prompted by the federation’s deliberate and habitual dereliction of duties. it should be stated that a certification election can still be held even if the collective agreement were certified. a local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried to remove as officials. in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. No obstacle that may possible thwart the desirable objective of militancy in labor’s struggle for better terms and conditions is then to be placed on his way. Such a phenomenon is nothing new in the Philippine labor movement. the employer has no link to the mother union. The clear policy is to conjoin workers and worker groups. Ferrer should not be made accountable for such an act. Once the fact of disaffiliation has been demonstrated beyond doubt. the right of a local union to disaffiliate from a federation in the absence of any provision in the federation’s constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union is legal Such right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Parenthetically. sought disaffiliation from the FFW for petitioners had not formed a union distinct from that of the SAMAHAN. sought the help of the FEDLU only after they had learned of the termination of their employment upon the recommendation of Capitle.” Alex Ferrer vs NLRC (1993) SAMAHAN and Occidental Foundry Corporation (OFC) entered into a CBA effective for 3 years. Without said affiliation. Neither may it be inferred that Ferrer et al. Their alleged application with federations other than the FFW can hardly be considered as disloyalty to the SAMAHAN. Labor Alliance Council v. The obligation of an employee to pay union dues is coterminous with his affiliation or membership. That option belongs to him. it certainly cannot be considered as constituting disloyalty to the union. from the SAMAHAN. and. free to serve their own and the common interest of all.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Nor is it open to any legal objection. including petitioners. more in need of it if the institution of collective bargaining as an aspect of industrial democracy is to succeed. A contract between an employer and the parent organization as bargaining agent for the employees is terminated by the disaffiliation of the local. subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. as a matter of fact. Ferrer et al. and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence. The SAMAHAN is a different entity from FFW. Pursuant to the union security clause. as in this case. Effect of disaffiliaion on right of the federation to receive dues: ALUMETAL is entitled to receive the dues from companies as long as union is affiliated with it and companies are authorized by their employees to deduct union dues. nor may the filing of such applications denote that Ferrer et al. He may be. tried to unseat the SAMAHAN leadership headed by Capitle due to the latter’s alleged inattention to members’ demands. A local union. A workingman is not to be denied that liberty. Hence. Employees’ grievances were allegedly left unattended to the detriment of the employees’ rights and interests. Ramos (2000) A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. failed to maintain in good standing their membership in the SAMAHAN. et al. disloyalty to the union officials. a local may dissociate with its parent union. et al. a resolution was passed by SAMAHAN expelling Ferrer. while Ferrer’s act of holding a special election to oust Capitle. What actually happened in this case was that some members. Phil. which could have been dealt with by the union as a disciplinary matter. BLR (1977) HELD It is indisputable that the present controversy would not have arisen if there were no mass disaffiliation from petitioning union. Malayang Samahan v. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. may be considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members. perhaps. et al. its certification must still give way to any representation issue that may be raised within 60day period so that the right of employees to choose a bargaining unit agent and the right of unions to be chosen shall be preserved. a certification election is the most expeditious way of determining which labor organization is to be the exclusive bargaining representative.

Liberty Cotton Mills (1975) Facts: A CBA was entered into by the company and the union who was represented by PAFLU (mother union). this tells us that a local union can disaffiliate from its mother union if a majority of the local union decides to do so. As PSEA had validly severed itself from PAFLU.) Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. there could be no legal objections thereto for it was there right to do so. PSEA and their respective officers. which is an independent and separate local union. 32 of the 36 members of the union disaffiliated from PAFLU. Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA-NCW. Inc. Inc. Hence.) But what petitioners did by the very clear terms of their “Sama-Samang Kapasiayahn” was to dissafiliate Amigo-Employees Union-PAFLU (local union) from PAFLU (federation or mother union). with due recognition of this fact. Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 92. an affiliate has the right to disaffiliate. The mere act of disaffiliation did not divest PSEA of its own personality. Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national federation. In the CBA a union security clause was agreed upon. (This means that individual employees may disaffiliate from a union where they belong. those of the former must be preferred. we deem it proper to settle the controversy at this instance since to remand the case to the BLR would only mean intolerable delay for the parties. instead. should have been dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action. Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor. Philippine Skylanders. local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations RULE – LEGALITY ACT – DISAFFILIATION Villar vs Inciong (1983) Although. validly disaffiliate from PAFLU pending the settlement of an election protest questioning its status as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of PSI's rank and file employees? Jurisdiction At the outset. Legal personality It stands unchallenged that PAFLU instituted the complaint for unfair labor practice against the wishes of workers whose interests it was supposedly protecting. The complaint then for unfair labor practice lodged by PAFLU against PSI. having been filed by a party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint.5% of the total union membership supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized PAFLU from instituting any complaint in their behalf. (By implication. Effect of pendency of election protest As such. PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of duty toward its members. PAFLU won in the certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of PSI. to the will of their members. In September. we upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations. On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining agreement with PSI. allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to continue occupying their positions as elected officers in the newly-forged PSEA-NCW.an act they could NOT have done with any effective consequence because they constituted the MINORITY in the amigo employees-union PAFLU. neither did it give PAFLU the license to act independently of the local union. NLRC (2002) In November 1993 the PSEA. There is nothing shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. as a matter of principle. The disaffiliation was valid under the local’s Constitution and By-Laws. HELD: In the CBA PAFLU has been recognized as the sole bargaining agent for all the employees of the Company. this right must respect the terms of the affiliation agreement. Only 4 out of its members remained. pending settlement of the controversy. PAFLU through Serafin Ayroso filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI. the pendency of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation. PAFLU might have forgotten that as an agent it could only act in representation of and in accordance with the interests of the local union. Several months later. a local labor union affiliated with the PAFLU. Liberty Cotton Mills. had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the association free to serve the common interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances warrant. Right to disaffiliate In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with (NCW) and to maintain continuity within the organization. PAFLU asked the company to dismiss or terminate all 32 employees. It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a CBA with PSEA-NCW. This was clearly stated in its constitution and by-laws which provided that Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union-PAFLU shall remain an affiliate as long as ten (10) or more of its members evidence their desire to continue the said local unions affiliation. v. May PSEA. there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW. Nonetheless. Had petitioners merely disaffiliated from Amigo Employees Union-Paflu. let it be noted that the issue of disaffiliation is an inter-union conflict the jurisdiction of which properly lies with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and not with the Labor Arbiter. Its rival union. The PAFLU. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 36 of 139 . the dismissal from employment was unjustified. acting for and in behalf of its affiliate.

NLRC) This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union. charitable. as long as there is no express prohibition in the charter certificate issued by the National union or Federation. but such disaffiliation must be effected by a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. CIR (1965) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 37 of 139 . Right to associate includes right to disassociate. a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union ONLY during the 60 day freedom period immediately preceding expiration of CBA.  All persons employed in commercial. self-employed people. otherwise it shall be a ground for termination A local union which has validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent association and which continues to represent the employees of an employer is entitled to the check-off dues under a collective bargaining contract. and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. however. or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. join.02 RATIONALE-EMPLOYEE ACTION Juat v. rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. medical. Art.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations PERIOD Alliance of Nationalist Union v. Can be hired even if not union member. hours of work. 4. NLRC 149 SCRA 470 (1987)) Exception: But even before the onset of the freedom disaffiliation may still be carried out. Continued Employment After some time. (AWU v. Samahang Generally. Ambulant. 243 Coverage and employees’ right to selforganization. 248(e) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS  to discriminate in regard to wages. it will be grounds for termination After due process is observed If not a member at anytime. grounds for termination After due process is observed If disaffiliates from union.01 STATUTORY BASIS Art.  Nothing in this code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment. shall have the right to self-organization and to form. Disini: A local union in a general sense acquires its legitimacy by affiliating with a registered federation or national union. 4. EXCEPTION: Shift of allegiance of majority. or educational institutions. employee must become a member Ground for Termination If they employee does not join the union after a reasonable time.  When to disaffiliate? General rule: a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or independent union ONLY during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding the expiration of the CBA. (Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. grounds for termination After due process is observed Part IV : UNION SECURITY Employee must become a member at the time of hiring Must be a member all through-out Maintenan ce shop Already a member at the time of hiring Must maintain membership. Will such local lose its legitimate status when it disaffiliates from the mother union? Suggested answer: No. intermittent and itinerant workers. whether operating for profit or not. EXCEPT those employees who are already members of ANOTHER UNION at the time of signing of the collective bargaining agreement. industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious. In such a case. the CBA continues to bind members of the new or disaffiliated and independent union up to the CBA’s expiration date  What is the effect of disaffiliation on union dues? Closed Shop Hiring Union Shop Employees have access to labor market.

Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations A closed shop agreement has been considered as one form of union security whereby only union members can be hired AND workers must remain union members as a condition of continued employment. Rizal Cement Co. and a closedshop provision would not justify the employer in discharging. should be subordinated to the constitutional provision protecting the sanctity of contracts. To further increase the effectiveness of labor organizations. or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closedshop agreement. (2) BUT ALSO to old employees who ARE NOT members of any labor union at the time the said collective bargaining agreement was entered into. In fact it is said that the closedshop contract is the most prized achievement of unionism..04 CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNION SECURITY DRAFTING AND OF PROVISION– Rizal Labor Union v. as it was in pursuance of an agreement that has been found to be regular and of a closed-shop agreement which under our laws is valid and binding. There must be a provision that union members must be in good standing to keep their job. Inc. RATIONALE CLOSED SHOP: The requirement for employees or workers to become members of a union as a condition for employment redounds to the benefit and advantage of said employees because by holding out to loyal members a promise of employment in the closed-shop the union wields group solidarity. because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege. said employee or worker cannot be obliged to become a member of that union which had entered into a CBA with the employer as a condition for his continued employment. either in a given locality. such attempt to override the constitutional provision would necessarily and ipso facto be null and void  To whom is Closed-shop proviso of a CBA applicable? Closed-shop proviso of a collective bargaining agreement entered into between an employer and a duly authorized labor union is applicable not only to the employer and a duly authorized labor union is applicable NOT ONLY to the (1) Employees or laborers that are employed AFTER the collective bargaining agreement was entered into. which should be allowed to be exercised without limitation may be subordinated to the freedom of laborers to choose the organization they desire to represent them. CIR (1973) GENERALLY: a state may NOT compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual. We can not conceive how freedom to contract. And even if the legislature had intend ad to do so and made such freedom of the laborer paramount to the sanctity of obligation of contracts. Victorias-Manapla Workers Organization ruled: "Another reason for enforcing the closedshop agreement is the principle of sanctity or inviolability of contracts guaranteed by the Constitution. NLRC (1987) This Court speaking thru Mr. to dismiss an employer for lack of or loss of union membership. it is well settled that such unions are NOT entitled to arbitrarily excluded qualified applicants for membership. a closed-shop has been allowed. Consequently. (1955) In order for an employer to be bound under a union security clause in the CBA. The dismissal by virtue thereof cannot constitute an unfair labor practice. 4. BUT since their application necessarily involves the surrender of a portion of a worker’s individual freedom and could result in loss of his employment. 4. The action of the respondent company in enforcing the terms of the closed-shop agreement is a valid exercise of its rights and obligations under the contract. EXCEPTION: The rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor. CIR (1977) The CBA provides: IV MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP Both parties agree that all employees of the COMPANY who are already members of the UNION at the time of the signing of this AGREEMENT shall continue to remain members UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 38 of 139 . TAKE NOTE: Close shop and union shop provisions are in principle valid and allowed by law. The terms of specific union clauses should be construed strictly and doubts should be resolved against their existence. Manila Cordage Co. v. an employee whom he union thus refuses to admit to membership. without any reasonable ground thereof. or a union in insisting upon the discharge of.. As a matter of principle the provision of the industrial Peace Act granting freedom to employees to organize themselves and select their representative for entering into bargaining agreements.03 VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND Tanduay Distillery Labor Union V. v. the stipulation must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave absolutely no room for doubt. Guijarno v. Justice Labrador. if an employee or laborer is already a member of a labor union different from the union that entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the employer providing for a closed-shop. in Victorias Milling Co. In other words.

paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. Anakan Lumber Co. the Company should have reasonably satisfied itself by its own inquiry that the Union had not been merely acting arbitrarily and capriciously in impeaching and expelling petitioner Cariño. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. The right of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his 4.  Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment. Notwithstanding the Union's Security Clause in the CBA. Inc. We need not stretch our imagination too far to know the difference between or duration of employment from terms and conditions of employment.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations of the UNION AGREEMENT" for the duration of this The foregoing stipulation. A year later. to "afford protection to labor. upon its written request. vs. however. It is OUR considered view that respondent company is equally liable for the payment of backwages for having acted in bad faith in effecting the dismissal of the individual petitioners. Such interpretation would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate that the State shall afford protection to labor. CIR. is bound to dismiss any employee expelled by PAFLU for disloyalty. CIR (1973) The authoritative doctrine that a closed-shop provision in a collective bargaining agreement is not to be given a retroactive effect so as to preclude its being applied to employees already in the service is traceable to the leading case of Confederated Son of Labor vs. the parties hereto nave decided to enter into an agreement relating to the terms and conditions of employment and reference to those employees to whom the provisions of this AGREEMENT apply. the petitioner urges that the same should be construed together with the "Whereas" provision of the contract which reads: "WHEREAS. under the 1935 Constitution. the stipulation to this effect must be so clear as to leave no room for doubt thereon An undertaking of this nature is so harsh that it must be strictly construed and doubts must be resolved against the existence of the right to dismiss. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. Even with the conjunctive interpretation. Apparently aware of the deficiency of the maintenance-of-membership clause. in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co.06 IMPLEMENTATION–OBLIGATION & LIABILITIES Carino v. o accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided. NLRC (1990) We believe that the Company should have given petitioner Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of the controversy with the Union. We conclude that the Company had failed to accord to petitioner Cariño the latter's right to procedural due process. 4.. There is nothing unusual in this Court's adherence with remarkable consistency to the basic doctrine that a closed-shop provision should not be applied retroactively. it was held that a closed-shop agreement applies only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. does not clearly state that maintenance of membership 'in the Manen Labor Union is a condition of continuous employment in the Manila Labor Cordage Company. o Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. wages. other benefits and privileges clearly specified therein. Bad faith on the part of respondent company may be gleaned from the fact that the petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily. that the individual authorization required under Article 242. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Guijarno v. it was guilty of a tortious act. let alone cure the defect of the same. since it apparently chose to summarily dismiss the workers at the union's instance secure in the union's contractual undertaking that the union would hold it "free from any liability" arising from such dismissal. for which it must assume solidary liability. To construe the stipulations above-quoted as imposing as a condition to continued employment in the Manila Cordage Company the maintenance of membership in the Manco Labor Union is to violate the natural and constitutional right of the laborer to organize freely. these two provisions can not supplant the omission of said maintenance of membership clause. In order that the Manila Cordage Company may be deemed bound to dismiss employees who do not maintain their membership in the Union. The obligation was imposed on the State.05 COVERAGE – WORKER INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION Art. if such non-union members UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 39 of 139 . While respondent company. At best. this undertaking should not be done hastily and summarily. 248 (e)  To discriminate in regard to wages. under the Maintenance of Membership provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. especially to working women and minors. The company acted in bad faith in dismissing petitioner workers without giving them the benefit of a hearing." The said whereas' proviso neither refers to tenure or duration of employment which is the dispute in the case at bar but only to terms and conditions of employment such as working hours.

or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its constitution and by-laws. agent. etc. Facundo Veloso was retained by Welga Labor Union to represent it in the collective bargaining negotiations. Veloso would be paid the sum of P20. The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. no special assessments. An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a company which disregards his rights but also from his own Union the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from his job. for the individual employees. Since there has already been an actual termination. atty.07 FINANCIAL SECURITY CHECK-OFF Art. 241 m. We are of the opinion that these facts do not come within the phrase "grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. but can only be made when authorized by individual written authorization. in his own behalf or in behalf of any person. 2) Extraordinary Fees.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations side in a controversy with either the Company or his own Union. recognized as the proper bargaining representative. 113 b No employer. No grievance between them exists which could be brought to a grievance machinery. Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. however. is not wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a Union Shop Clause in a CBA. It is assured thereby of CONTINOUS FUNDING. or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees. It need not be mentioned that the parties to a CBA are the union and the company. The problem or dispute in the present case is between the union and the company on the one hand and some union and non-union members who were dismissed. Art. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor org:  unless authorized by a written resolution  of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting  duly called for the purpose. ABS-CBN A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer. The grievance machinery with members designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed employees.n. See also 241 m.n. only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators.  the votes cast.’s fees. on agreement with the Union.00 as 4. As this Court has acknowledge. due process is still necessary. deduct union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages and remit them directly to the union. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. CHECK-OFF: 1) Ordinary Union dues UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 40 of 139 . both the union and the company are united or have come to an agreement regarding the dismissal of private respondents.  The authorization should specifically state the amount. While it appears that the dismissal of the private respondents was made upon the recommendation of PSSLU pursuant to the union security clause provided in the CBA. negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee  without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of any labor org shall be open to inspection by any officer or member thereof during office hours. The secretary of the org shall record:  the minutes of the meeting  including the list of all members present. It was agreed that Atty.  the purpose of the special assessment or fees and  the recipient of such assessments or fees. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body. Workers Union v. The statutory limitation on checkoffs are found in Article 241 g : “No officer. shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees except: for union dues. In the instant case. dues. Canizares (1992) In the instant case. to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.o m. on the other hand. BAR QUESTION (1997 XI) 5%: Atty. We hold that the Labor Arbiter and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaints of the private respondents. The record shall be attested to by the president. Sanyo Phil. the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union V. duly signed by each employee concerned. in cases where the right of the worker of his union to check-off has been recognized by the employer OR authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned. (No need to be under oath) o. OR on PRIOR authorization from its employees. the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the Union and only indirectly. IMPLICATION: Even if may union security clause.o.000. Hence. n. The legal basis of check-off is found in statutes or in contracts." the jurisdiction of which pertains to the Grievance Machinery or thereafter.

3. (b) The assessment of P100. (b) The assessment of P100. if such non-union member accepts the benefit under the CBA…” Take note: In the case of agency fee. Several members of the Welga Labor Union approached you to seek advice on the following matters: (a) Whether or not the collection of the amount assessed on the individual members to answer for the attorney’s fees was valid. and (b) Whether or not the assessment of P100. National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union v.00 from the individual members of the Welga Labor Union for services rendered by the union officers in the CBA negotiations would be valid if it was authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members in a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.00 from each union member as attorney’s fees – for union negotiation is NOT valid. (Art.The incumbent bargaining agent shall continue to be entitled to check-off and collect dues and agency fees despite the pendency of a representation case. 2.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations attorney’s fees for his assitance in the CBA negotiations. Veloso’s fees and another sum of P100. attorney’s fees and representation expenses be valid and upheld: 1. San Miguel Corporation (1963) In this case the SC cited different reasons why non-union members cannot be compelled to pay agency fees but this case is overturned by Art. .00 each to pay for Atty.00 each for services rendered by the union officers. Authorization by a written of the majority of all the members at the general meeting for that purpose. or not required. for the same reason stated above.00 from the individual members of the Welga Laborn Union for services rendered by the union officers in the CBA negotiations was valid. Basis Art. After the conclusion of the negotiations. Suggested Answer: (a) The assessment of P100. more especially to members of rival unions. Individual written authorization for checkoff. This is for practical reasons. other inter/intra-union disputes or related labor relations disputes. 248 e 2nd paragraph: “ …employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent mat be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of a recognized collective bargaining agent. Alternative Answer: (a) The collection of the amount assessed on the individual members to answer for attorney’s fees would be valid if it was authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members in a general membership meeting called for the purpose. Right of union to collect dues and agency fees. 241n) DISINI: Requisites so that special assessment for union’s incidental expenses is valid Article 241 speaks of three (3) requisites that must be complied with in order that the special assessment for Union’s incidental expenses.40-03 Series of 2003 RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM Section 1. because the law recognizes the extreme difficulty of imposing agency fee on non-union members. Welga Labor Union collected from its individual members the sum of P100. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 41 of 139 . 248 e. individual authorization not applied. DO No. AGENCY FEE now has a statutory basis Art.00 as negotiation fees charged to each individual union member and payable to union officers is also not valid. 222 b of the labor code. Secretary’s record of the meeting.

is It must be determined whether or not such grouping will best assure to the employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. 40-03 series of 2003 Rule I (d) "Bargaining Unit" refers to a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit. 3. & probationary Employees. Note: This is related to the policy of the law in ensuring the right to collective bargain. seasonal. However. temporary. DO No. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical grouping within such employer unit. rates of pay. To determine consider. RATIONALE OF THE COMMUNITY OR MUTUALITY OF INTEREST TEST: Greater chance of success for the collective bargaining process. The ultimate test of proper grouping substantiality of mutuality of interest. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of Employees.  to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed in so far as said processes will directly affect their RIGHTS. Belyca Corp. 2) Affinity & unity of Employees interest. Cebu Stevedoring Co. that the representatives of the workers in such labor mgt councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all Employees in said establishment. ad employment status. indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties.02 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT 1. 5.e. the employees of Belyca cannot be grouped together in one single union. 22 of RA 6715] – The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the Employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit  Shall be the exclusive representative of the Employees in such unit  For the purpose of collective bargaining. It marks the boundaries of those who may participate in a certification election. consistent with equity to the employer. subject to such rules and regulations as the SOLE may promulgate. To act as a SOVEREIGN in relation to the CE and CBA 2. a) will of the employees (Globe doctrine). From the reading of article 255: its function is to select or designate a labor organization to represent them in collective bargaining. The law is NOT looking for the best. 3) Prior CB history and 4) Employment status i. DISINI:The law is looking only for what is PROPER OR APPROPRIATE. b) affinity and unity of employees’ interest such as similarity of work. hours of work.  Provided.01 DEFINITION AND ROLE IN LAW Art. For this purpose. It is an Economic Unit.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations Part V : APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT 5. consistent w/ equity to the ER. which the collective interest of all the Employees. such as substantial similarity of works and duties or similarity of compensation & working conditions. indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights & duties of the parties under the CB provisions of the law. Thus. Ferrer-Calleja (1992) HELD: A bargaining unit is a group of Employees. duties and salary. an individual EE or group of Employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their ER. The TEST of grouping is COMMUNITY or MUTUALITY of INTERESTS because the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit’s ACCEPTABILITY is won it is fundamentally the combination w/c will best assure to all Employees the exercise of their CB rights. there are factors w/c must be satisfied & considered in determining the PROPER UNIT. c) prior collective bargaining history and d) employment status. They differ in working conditions. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. FACTORS IN GENERAL UP v. DISINI: What is the function of an appropriate bargaining unit? 1. workers and ERs may form LABOR MGT COUNCILS. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 42 of 139 . vs Calleja (1988) A proper bargaining unit:  is a group of employees of a given employer comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees.  which the collective interests of all the employees. workers shall have the right. It is an ELECTORAL DISTRICT. In Democratic Labor Assoc v.. Rothenberg mentions: 1) Will of the Employees. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision-making [sec. proper bargaining unit. BENEFITS and WELFARE.

” In CAB. thus it will be harder for them to bargain. compensation rates. Laguesma (1994) HELD: Prior collective bargaining history is not conclusive or determinative of what constitutes the appropriate bargaining unit.a = “Collective interest of employees” consistent with the equity of the employer. extent and type of organization of employees in other plants of the same employer. 5. The Employees sought to be represented by CB agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they perform.: A group of rank and file of old employees can be separated from a rank and file of young employees. An enlightening appraisal of the problem of defining an appropriate bargaining unit is given in the 10th Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board wherein it is emphasized that the factors which said board may consider and weigh in fixing appropriate units are: 1. without inequity to the employer. (1958) HELD: The court below is correct in concluding that the system of having one collective bargaining unit for each camp should be maintained and continued for the following reasons: Such system had operated satisfactorily. to be appropriate must affect a grouping of employees who have substantial. extent and type of organization of employees. v. or other employers in the same industry. EQUITY * Of employees: A. it is likewise emphasized that the basic test in determining the appropriate bargaining unit is that a unit. The prime element in determining whether a given group of employees constitute a proper bargaining unit is whether it will. The two groups do not have the same interest. There may be DIFFERENCE as to the nature of their individual assignments but the distinctions are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations Illustration of Prof. and Balatok Mining Co. The bargaining unit is designed to maintain the mutuality of interest among the employees in such unit. DISINI: Ratio of historical theory: if it worked well before in the past it will work well again now.k. One group needs the other in the same way that the company needs them both. there is mutuality of interest among the employees of the sawmill division and the Logging Division. hours. there is an absence of community of interests w/c justifies the formation of a single CB unit. “Certainly. and operation.” HISTORY San Miguel Corp. Even the whole bargaining unit sought to be represented only consists of 55 employees. Bobok Lumberjack Assn. They have the same duties. The desires of the employees. the dissimilarity in the nature of the works & duties. especially if the issues involve in the collective bargaining would be to choose between salary raise or a pension plan. SMA can’t insist that each sales office should constitute one bargaining unit. COMPOSITION * All or less than all of the entire body of employees 2. 3. ELEMENTS OF AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT: 1. responsibilities. Thus. The test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interest. Example of application of community of mutual interest test: Casual employees were barred from joining union of the permanent and regular employees. The history. working conditions. The history of their collective bargaining 3. The skill. The history . Thus a reason to dissolve. In said report. It is not the convenience of the employer that constitutes the determinative factor in forming the bargaining unit. In the present case the separation between the camps and the different kinds of work in each all militate in favor of the present system of separate bargaining units since the problems and interest of the workers are peculiar in each camp or department. There is similarity of employment status for all sales personnel. An appropriate bargaining unit depends on the factors that are influenced by the market place. wages. social life and interests. Teachers would find very little in common w/ the non-academic Employees as regards the responsibilities & functions. 4. Their functions mesh with one another. It would not be for the best interest to fractionalize them further. management. The eligibility of the employees for membership in the union or unions involved 7. There is meager number of sales personnel in each sales office. v. Thus. compensation and working conditions. 6. work and working conditions of the employees. GEOGRAPHY – LOCATION Benguet Consolidated Inc. CORPORATE ENTITIES UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 43 of 139 . PURPOSE * “to serve the reciprocal rights & duties of the parties under the CB provisions of the law. SEPARATION of these 2 categories is needed for CB purposes. Can you have a permanent bargaining unit? No. the university Employees may be categorized into 2 GEN CLASSES: non-academic and academic Employees. working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining. change or expand a certain bargaining unit is when THE INTEREST BETWEEN GROUPS HAS CHANGED OVER TIME. 2. best serve all employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights. The relationship between the units or units proposed and the employer’s organization. mutual interests in wages.

Indophil Acrylic (WHICH IS ANOTHER COMPANY) was formed. Each entity maintains separate financial statements and are audited separately from each other. 6. The existence of a bonafide business relationship between Acrylic and Indophil Textile is not a proof of being a single corporate entity because the services which are supposedly provided by Textile to Acrylic are AUXILIARY SERVICES or activities which are NOT ESSENTIAL in the actual production of Acrylic..Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union v. Confesor (1996) San Miguel Corporation was originally one company composed of four operating divisions namely: 1. offices and facilities are in the same compound aren’t sufficient to pierce the corporate veil of Acrylic. Take note: “The fact that their businesses are related and that the 236 employees of Georgia Pacific International Corporation were originally UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 44 of 139 . protects fraud or defends crime.Union v. The union in this case does not seek to impose a claim on the members of Acrylic. ISSUE: WON the employees of the two new corporations (Magnolia Corp & San Miguel Foods) should still remain in the same bargaining unit and be included I the old bargaining unit of the old SMC? HELD: No. 4. No mutuality of interest anymore between corporations: Considering the spin-offs. 1. Each company enforces its own administrative and operational rules. magnolia. 2. Under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. 1. The fact that the businesses are related. that some of the employees are the same persons working in the other company and the physical plants. 3. Neither can we impute any bad faith on the part of SMC to justify the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. It submits that the fact that there are as many bargaining units as there are companies in a conglomeration of companies is a positive proof that a corporation is endowed with a legal personality DISTINCTLY ITS OWN. Diatagon Labor Federation v. San Miguel Corporation employees for ALL DIVSIONS were represented by San Miguel Corp employees union-PTGWO. packaging. 7. Doctrine applies when the fiction defeats public convenience. 4. The essential services are discharged exclusively by Acrylic personnel under the control and supervision of Acrylic managers and supervisors. supervised and controlled by different management terms including separate human resource/personnel managers. wages. 3. Employees in the Magnolia Corporation and San Miguel Foods may form a separate bargaining unit. hours of work and other conditions of employment. In Umali vs CA. Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union claimed that Acrylic should be considered an extension of Indophil textile and therefore the CBA executed by Indophil textile and the Union should cover Indophil Acrylic. For such reason. independent and separate from other corporations. the employees of the different companies see the need to group themselves together and organized themselves into distinctive and different groups. 4. The different companies may have different volumes of work and different working conditions. Its workers unionized and another CBA was executed. Each of the companies are run by. San Miguel underwent a restructuring. 2. legal corporate entity is disregarded only if it is sought to hold the officers and stockholders directly liable for a corporate debt or obligation. Thus this shows that Indophil Acrylic is not an alter ego or an adjunct or business conduit of Indophil Textile because it has a separate legitimate purpose. Indophil Acrylic cannot manufacture textile while Indophil Textile Cannot buy or import yarn. Magnolia is involved in the manufacturing and processing of dairy products while SMFI is involved in the production of feeds and processing chicken. HELD: Indophil ACRYLIC is NOT an extension of INDOPHIL TEXTILE. San Miguel . ISSUE: WON the operation in INDOPHIL ACRYLIC are extension or expansion of Indophil Textile Mills. Thus the CBA of Indophil textile. Unlike Indophil Textile. Calica (1992) FACTS: The Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union and Indophil Textile executed a CBA which provided that the CBA shall apply to the company’s extensions and expansions. The nature of their products and scales of business may require different skills which must necessarily be commensurate by different compensation packages. As a consequence of this Magnolia and Feeds & livestock Division were spun-off and became two separate and distinct corporation. the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of the nature of work. Interests of employees in the different companies perforce differ. 2. beer. the legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate and distinct from another may be disregarded. feeds and livestock. The transformation of the companies was a management prerogative and business judgment which the courts cannot look into unless it is contrary to law. public policy or morals. when valid grounds exist. justifies wrong. 3. Ople GR L44493-94 (1980) :” two corporations cannot be treated as single bargaining units even if their businesses are related. cannot apply to Indophil Acrylic. 5.. Lastly it is grave abuse of discretion to treat 2 companies as a single bargaining unit when these 2 companies are indubitably distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. SMC is engaged in the business of beer manufacturing.

c. GVM and ASDA employees have a single Mutual Benefit System and followed a single system of compulsory retirement. Plebiscite may be held to determine WON the Employees w/in the dept do want a separate bargaining agent. and ordered a plebiscite held for that purpose. Torres (1993) This case involved three companies (PSVSIA. control and communication systems indicate their unitary corporate personality. & ASDA) and only one union (UFW). Hence. 2. certiorari is not proper. GVM. v. etc. is not a justification for disregarding their separate personalities. ISSUE: Whether or not a SINGLE petition for certification election or for recognition as the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining agent can validly or legally be filed by a labor union in three (3) corporations each of which has a separate and distinct legal personality instead of filing three (3) separate petitions? HELD: Yes. Laguesma (1994) HELD: Prior collective bargaining history is not conclusive or determinative of what constitutes the appropriate bargaining unit. Scouts Veterans v. 1. v. extent and type of organization of employees. They have the same duties. The claim raised by Kapisanan would only be entertained on appeal and only after the CIR has ruled on the matter.e.” MANAGEMENT Phil. PSVSIA. UNIT SEVERANCE DOCTRINE INDUSTRIAL/CRAFTS UNION Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Road Co. called the GLOBE DOCTRINE. the appeal was premature since the result of the ordered plebiscite may be adverse to the creation of a separate bargaining unit-. It becomes necessary to give considerations of the express desire or will of the Employees. the workers in Caloocan require special skills in the operation of heavy equipment. the 236 employees. 2. should not be allowed to vote in the certification election at the Lianga Bay Logging Corporation. b. Since this is an interlocutory order. the others do not. Veil of corporate fiction should be lifted for the purpose of allowing the employees of the three agencies to form a single labor union. Inc. The Employees sought to be represented by CB agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they perform.. it becomes difficult to determine from the evidence alone which of the several claimant groups forms proper bargaining unit. In emergencies. indicating that bargaining units had been formed through separation of new units from existing ones whenever plebiscites had shown the workers’ desires to have their own representatives. Bargaining units had been formed through separation of new units from existing ones AND THE GLOBE UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 45 of 139 . e. Those in the Caloocan shops have a community of interests and working conditions. Employees need not file three separate petitions for certification election. f. There is similarity of employment status for all sales personnel. who are now attached to Georgia Pacific International Corporation. Agencies have common and interlocking incorporators and officers. all PSVSIA Detachment Commanders were instructed in a memorandum to get in touch with the officers not only of PSVSIA but also of GVM and ASDA. Plebiscite is not to be conducted by the DOLE but by the Court itself. responsibilities. MDLU seems to have conceded that the results would favor separation. Yard Crew Union (1960) HELD: Because of modern complexities of relations b/w employer & union structure. PSVSIA. The test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interest. They should vote at a separate certification election to determine the collective bargaining representative of the employees of Georgia Pacific International Corporation. All the cross-linking of the three agencies’ command. GVM. They also perform major repairs of railway rolling stock. (Remember: this is different from a certification election) Factors which may be considered are history. The security agencies are managed through the Utilities Management Corporation with all of their employees drawing their salaries and wages from said entity.however. and relying on the “globe doctrine” the employees in the Caloocan shop should be given a chance to vote on whether their group should be separated from that represented by the mechanical department labor union. Inc. Caloocan shops) and those of the others. the history of CB. This is the practice of the courts to hold a series of elections not for the purpose of granting the right of representation to the group garnering the majority vote but to let employees select on several units to represent them. d. San Miguel Corp. Hence. a. Technically. Also. the other units do only minor repairs. the GLOBE DOCTRINE properly applies. GVM and ASDA always hold joint yearly ceremonies such as the "PGA Annual Awards Ceremony". The securities agencies concerned (PSVSIA. compensation and working conditions. No explanation was given why the security guards of one agency could easily transfer from one agency to another and then back again by simply filling-up a common pro forma slip called "Request for Transfer". The CIR found basic differences b/w those in the Rolling Stocks (i. All of these could be covered in a single petition. Mechanical Dep’t Labor Union v CIR (1968) In view of its findings and the history of union representation in the railway company. & ASDA) do not exist and operate separately and distinctly from each other with different corporate directions and goals. This is keeping with the court’s right to investigate fully in matters concerning certification elections.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations employees of Lianga Bay Logging Co.

However. Sanchez. pilots and stewardesses belong to ONE bargaining unit (unit A) for the purpose of collective bargaining. Since the confidential employees are very few and are identified with the supervisors in their role as representatives of management vis-a-vis the rank and file employees. it can never bind subsequent federations and unions because it is a curtailment of the right to self-organization guaranteed by the labor laws. Industrial court enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representations by employees. such identity of interest has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining unit of supervisors-managers for purposes of collective bargaining.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations whenever plebiscites had shown the worker’s desire to have their own representatives. NLRC (1998) Supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. with the use of the GLOBE DOCTRINE a plebiscite can be held to determine if the pilot employees would want to form a separate bargaining unit (unit B). HELD: Since the confidential employees are very few in number and are by practice and tradition identified with the supervisors in their role as representatives of management vis-à-vis the rank and file employees. (2) To vote for Unit B: This would mean that they would want to form their OWN bargaining unit.originally. This identity of interest logically calls for their inclusion in the same bargaining unit and at the same time fulfills the law’s objective of insuring to them the full benefit of their right to selforganization and to collective bargaining. 3. The supervisory power of such Employees consists merely in recommending as to what managerial actions to take in disciplinary cases. most probably you are grouping together DIFFERENT SKILLED workers. v Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Union (1972) ISSUE: The right of supervisors and confidential employees to organize a labor association and to bargain collectively with their employer. Exclusion of the members from the bargaining union of the rank-and-file or from forming their own union was agreed upon by corporation with the previous bargaining representatives. Monthly-paid rank-and-file employees should be allowed to join the union of the daily-paid-rank-and-file employees so UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 46 of 139 . It hasn’t been shown that their responsibilities require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment or that they possess power and authority to lay down or exercise management policies. composed of pilots only. Rationale of the Globe Doctrine: highly skilled workers have to separate to increase their market value. such identity of interest has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining of supervisors for purposes of collective bargaining in turn as employees in relation to the company as their employer. Its judgment is entitled to finality. v BLR. (3) Neither: They do not want the choices If you have one BIG bargaining unit. (1987) HELD: Monthly paid Employees are not managerial. EFFECT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT General Rubber & Footwear Corp. DISINI: A brief explanation of the GLOBE DOCTRINE It is best explained in the context of a market place and the demand of employment on such market place. Illustration: Unit A (original bargaining unit) : 100 Pilots + 200 Stewardesses = 300 employees Unit B (proposed new unit): Pilots = 100 employees. Example given: Case of Pilots and Stewardess. 4. General had sought to indiscriminately suppress the members right to self-organization. The GLOBE DOCTRINE usually applies to employees with rare skills or highly technical ones. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious. If . will of the employees is the determinative factor. Those in unit B (100 pilots) will vote in a plebiscite. It is unusual to have to deal with 2 collective bargaining unions but there is no one to blame for creating the situation. Monthlies who are rank-and-file have been historically excluded from the bargaining unit composed of daily-paid rank-and-filers. They DO NOT FIT into the definition of managerial Employees laid down in Bulletin Publishing Corp v. Action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is discretionary. Their choices will be (1) To vote for Unit A: this would mean that they do not wish to separate from the original bargaining unit. SUPERVISOR UNIT Dunlop Slazenger v. Creating fragmentary units would not serve the interest of industrial peace. SIZE OF UNIT AND EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Filoil Refinery Corp. The breaking up of bargaining units into tiny units will greatly impair their organizational value. Thus. which could hardly be accomplished if the respondent association’s membership were to be broken up into five separate ineffective tiny units. This case does not fall squarely within the exception. Under the Globe Doctrine. they are NOT PROHIBITED from forming a union. The proliferation of unions in an employer unit is discouraged as a matter of policy unless there are compelling reasons which would deny a certain class of employees the right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining.

With regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees' functions. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the express exclusion of the computer operators and discipline officers from the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees in the 1986 collective bargaining agreement does not bar any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. workers shall have the right. The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. we agree with the voluntary arbitrator that based on the nature of their duties. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious and that absent any grave abuse of discretion as to justify the Court’s intervention.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations that they can also avail of the CBA benefits or to form their own rank-and-file union. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University. after a careful consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court. DLSUEA (2000) The University's arguments on the first issue fail to impress us. 232 Prohibition on Certification Election [sec. Its UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 47 of 139 . subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate. workers and employers may form labormanagement councils: Provided. That the representatives of the workers in such labormanagement councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment. because the two educational institutions have their own separate juridical personality and no sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. 253A and 256 of this Code (60 day freedom period) AGENCY AND FINALITY ORDER Filoil Refinery Corp. judgment is entitled to finality. and that its action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purpose is discretionary and that its judgment in this respect is entitled to almost complete finality.03 DETERMINING AGENCY Art. we rule that the said computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees. During the freedom period. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. As to the discipline officers. Action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is discretionary. without prejudice to the certification election that has been ordered. For this purpose. benefits and welfare. they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees.04 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND UNION MEMBER BARGAINING INDIVIDUAL Art. 253. v Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Union (1972) Industrial court enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representations by employees. However. to participate in policy and decisionmaking processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights. 5. an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. As carefully examined by the Solicitor General. The Court also affirms the findings of the voluntary arbitrator that the employees of the College of St. the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. 5. DLSU v. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious. the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non-confidential in nature. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. 15 of RA 6715] The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties EXCEPT under Art.

was a consent election and not a certification election. 1986. certification election and run-off election?   Department Order No. UST Faculty Union v. 4.” BACKGROUND POLICIES AND CHARACTERISTICS BEHIND A CERTIFICATION ELECTION 1. the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees (1) wish to be represented by a labor organization and (2) by which particular labor organization.  Where such a certified or consent results in none of the three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast. It is. 1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a collective contract. It is not litigation. Bitonio (1999) “Specifically. From the very nature of consent election. Distinguish Consent Election and Certification Election As correctly distinguished by private respondent. there being an existing collective bargaining agreement yet to expire on July 31.1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this controversy. It is clearly understood that the certified union in the said projected election shall respect and administer the existing CBA at the company until its expiry date on July 31. a consent election:  Is an agreed one. While a consent election  Is voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.  Its purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit While a certification election  Is aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations Part VI : UNION REPRESENTATION ESTABLISHING UNION MAJORITY STATUS  What are the difference between consent election. A certification election  Is ordered by the Department. with or without the intervention by the Department. Neither does it shorten the terms of an existing CBA nor entitle the participants thereof to immediately renegotiate an existing CBA although it does not preclude the workers from exercising their right to choose their sole and exclusive bargaining representative after the expiration of the sixty (60) day freedom period. WHICH union. 2. but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character  No determination asserted. Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. 2) And if they choose to have a union represent them. but only to determine which labor union shag administer the said existing contract. It is NOT a litigation. 1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union 2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins. Ferrer-Calleja) There can be no direct certification There can be no voluntary recognition 3. CERTIFICATION ELECTION  What is the PURPOSE of a certification election? It is a means of determining the worker’s choice of: 1) Whether the want a union to represent them for collective bargaining OR they want NO union to represent them at all. v. unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25. of rights violated or UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 48 of 139 . (ss) "Run-off Election" refers to  An election between the labor unions receiving the two (2) highest number of votes in a certification or consent election with three (3) or more choices. 40-03 Series of 2003 Rule I (h) "Certification Election" or "Consent Election" refers to the process of determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or negotiation. therefore. they will choose WHICH among the contending union will be the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. This contention is untenable.  Provided that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. 1986. The Bureau Of Labor Relations (1988) Petitioner: The holding of a certification election at the bargaining unit is patently premature and illegal because of the one-year no certification election rule and the principle of the Contract Bar Rule. but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character It is most DEMOCRATIC and most efficacious/ effective way (Samahang manggagawa sa permex case) and it is a STATUTORY POLICY (Belyca Corp. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August 25.

the mere fact that no opposition is made does NOT warrant a certification election. 1985). modes. collective bargaining. run-off or consent election as provided in these Rules. RULE VII VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION Section 1. v. reported with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule VII. Requirements for voluntary recognition. The main purpose of the procedure in Art. .In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization.260 is to aid in ascertaining the majority representation. When an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pre-text of retaining a laudable objective. 257 and 258) provides only for a certification election as the mode for determining the exclusive collective bargaining representative if there is a question of representation in an appropriate bargaining unit. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition. Even after the Supreme Court made the ruling. security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work. 40-03 series of 2003. IMPLICATION: It is most DEMOCRATIC and most efficacious/ effective way and it is a STATUTORY POLICY IMPLICATION: Thus it should not be circumvented (George & Peter Lines. XVIII) Can the Bureau of Labor Relations certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative after showing proof of majority representation thru union membership cards without conducting an election? SUGGESTED ANSWER:  Rule I: (bbb) "Voluntary Recognition" refers to the process by which a legitimate labor union is recognized by the employer as the exclusive bargaining representative or agent in a bargaining unit. should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statute. There can be NO DIRECT certification Colgate Palmolive Philippines v. the DOLE still included provisions o Voluntary Recoginition in DO No. “Technical rules and objections should not hamper the correct ascertainment of the labor union that has the support and confidence of the majority of the workers and is thus entitled to represent them in bargaining for the terms and conditions of their employment. the employer and union shall submit a notice of voluntary recognition with the Regional Office which issued the recognized labor union's certificate of registration or certificate of creation of a chartered local. The holding of a certification election at the proper time IS NOT NECESSARILY A MERE FORMALITY. Inc. Determination of The representation status. When and where to file. he in fact DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE AND ITS LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Ople(1988) ISSUE: WON the secretary of labor can directly certify a union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent? HELD: NO! He cannot directly certify. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 49 of 139 . The constitutional mandate that the State shall assure the rights of the workers to selforganization.The notice of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied by the original copy and two (2) duplicate copies of the following documents: (a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition attesting to the fact of voluntary recognition. There was therefore FAILURE TO DETERMINE with legal certainty whether the union indeed enjoyed majority representation.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations  Determination of worker’s choice only. BAR QUESTION (1998. . So the issue now is which should prevail? Azucena in his book recognizes Voluntary Recognition as valid and welcomes it as a new development to the law. determination of an exclusive bargaining agent shall be through voluntary recognition in cases where there is only one legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit. 257 . (b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary recognition for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the establishment or bargaining unit where the union seeks to operate. the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded. the bureau of labor relations CANNOT certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative without conducting a certification election. The implementing rules pertinent to these provision are all calculated to ensure that the certified bargaining rep is the TRUE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES against all contender. (Refer to doctrine of Colgate Palmolive) There can be NO VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION  This has been a debatable topic. The Labor Code (in Arts. 256. When respondent minister (Sec. Section 2.” (Port Workers Union v. Of Labor) DIRECTLY certified the union. or through certification. 134 SCRA 82. Another Suggested Answer: No. the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections. Associated Labor Union. DOLE) The BLR cannot certify a union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative after showing proof of majority representation thru union membership cards without conducting a certification election. Section 2 of these Rules. Rule VI Section 2. There should be no obstacle in conducting the Certificate election.

Sec of Labor (1998) Can an employer voluntarily recognize a union as the bargaining representative of the employees? HELD: NO! It cannot.  An alternative choice of the employee voting. and NO union. NO UNION) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 50 of 139 . the union. Logically. v. the Regional Office. Section 4. is subsumed in the right to join. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Trajano (1992) First issue: Voting No Union The right of self-organization includes the right to …. there is only one union and that there are no contending union?  “Certification election is the best and most appropriate means of ascertaining the will of the employees as to their choice of an exclusive bargaining representative. Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form. The employer (permex) should not have given its voluntary recognition to the union when the latter asked for recognition as exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees of the company. Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for certification election by any labor organization for a period of one (1) year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. within the same period. Section 3. Action on the Notice. to the effect that he desires not to be represented by any union. 1967) Reyes v. affiliate with. 19 SCRA 258. the protection. determine which of two or more unions in an establishment to join. number and substance and where there is no other registered labor union operating within the bargaining unit concerned. the recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights. any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union. within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice.” (George & Peter Lines.Where the notice of voluntary recognition is sufficient in form. accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. or assist any union. record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex v. and (d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit. the Regional Office shall.From the time of recording of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration of this one-year period. 134 SCRA 82 @ page 86)  Why is an employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION before a petition for certification election can be entertained? An employer employee relationship is a precondition since without such relationship. promotion. The company did not have the power to declare the union as the exclusive representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining. or assist any union. or enhancement of their rights and interests. or for their mutual aid and protection. Inc. affiliate with. the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying documents without prejudice to its re-submission. What is the effect if in a certificate election. Where neither the employer nor the labor union failed to complete the requirements for voluntary recognition under Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from receipt of the advisory. unless a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily recognized labor union was executed and registered with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule XVII of these Rules. The original Rules on Certification promulgated by the defunct Court of Industrial Relations required that the ballots to be used at a certification election to determine which of two or more competing labor unions would represent the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit should contain:  Aside from the names of each union. the freedom of choice by the employer being the primordial consideration. L-51602. there will be no duty to bargain on the part of either the employer or employee. and to maintain membership therein. and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization. (A vote for none. i. number and substance. the right NOT to join. besides the fact that the employees can choose between ALU.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations (c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit. Thus it will be senseless to go on with a certification election to choose their bargaining representative when there is no duty to collectively bargain anyway. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary recognition shall be certified under oath by the employer representative and president of the recognized labor union. ALU.e. . and to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. The right to refuse to join or be represented by any labor organization is recognized not only by law but also in the rules drawn up for implementation thereof. 1985. through the Labor Relations Division shall. .. notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements. Certification election is the most effective and the most democratic way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the ABU of the company. privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Cia Maritima.”  “That there are no competing unions involved should not alter that principle.

That the INK employees." they were simply exercising that right of self-organization. Where to file. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations The purpose of a certification election is precisely the ascertainment of the wishes of the majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: To be or not to be represented by a labor organization. . then the Certification Election ends. administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. If No wins . Laguesma (1994) Petitioner: the petition for certification election should have been filed with the regional office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the employer in accordance with the IRR of the Labor Code. have the right to bargain collectively. by which particular labor organization. the nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience of the worker For purposes of venue. It is not equivalent to and does not compensate for the denial of the right of the excluded employees to self-organization and collective bargaining. Barbizon v. Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for certification election is filed. Neither law. . Second issue: Non-union members are not excluded from voting in CE On argument that the petitioners are disqualified to vote because they "are not constituted into a duly organized labor union" — "but members of the INK which prohibits its followers. It does not apply to the filing of petitions for certification election where the place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different regional offices. albeit in its negative aspect." is specious. If Yes wins. VENUE OF PETITION: WHERE TO FILE? Cruz Valle Inc. which implies the power of the court to decide a case. do have the right of self-organization. The Supreme Court in previous cases ruled that the employees excluded from the coverage of the CBA. From the above case it can be derived that in a certification election there are two stages of voting: First stage: Whether or not the employees wants to be represented by a labor organization? Answerable by Yes or No. not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and exclusive bargaining representative. Neither is the inconvenience that may befall petitioner for having to administer two CBAs an excuse for depriving the monthly paid employees of their constitutionally guaranteed right to collective bargaining. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case Section 1. The allegation that some benefits under the existing CBA were extended to the monthly paid employees. Rule V. who not being excluded by law. the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact that there are many companies with factories located in places different from places where the corporate offices are located. as well as the fact that when they voted that the employees in their bargaining unit should be represented by "NO UNION. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail. If the results of the election should disclose that the majority of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union. as employees in the same bargaining unit in the true sense of the term. v. The petition shall be in writing and under oath. Nagkakaisang Supervisor (1996) The receipt by petitioner's "supervisor" employees of certain benefits under the CBA between BUKLOD and petitioner is not sufficient to deny the petition for certification election filed by the labor organization formed by the excluded UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 51 of 139 . petitioner or respondent. on religious grounds. Unlike jurisdiction. On the contrary. The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. The worker. then their wishes must be respected. workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. whether they are members of a labor organization or not. . being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant. the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit. venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. as the case may be. is also in truth beyond question. assignment or travel. from joining or forming any labor organization" — and "hence. and no union may properly be certified as the exclusive representative of the workers in the bargaining unit in dealing with the employer regarding wages. hours and other terms and conditions of employment. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. Second Stage: Which particular labor organization would you like to represent the bargaining unit?  What is effect of Receipt of Benefits of people outside the bargaining unit to the petition for CE? employees. then proceed to the Second Stage. And in the affirmative case. even if true will not preclude them from entering into a CBA of their own.

Where to file. 258: Election Note: Organized Establishments Unorganized Establishments Employer-Initiated Certificate The mechanics of the three entry-points are similar and the same. 256 ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENT: It is an establishment with: a. an unorganized establishment is an establishment without a bargaining representative.) Art. 253 & 253-A) Take note how SC interpreted the term “WITHIN”. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional Offices.A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of registration/certificate of creation of chartered local. 256: ORGANIZED Unorganized because the Art. The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter. be STATUTORY FRAME-WORK AND POLICY TAKE NOTE: Certification election implements the policy of right to self-organization and collective bargaining. What is the rationale of freedom period in organized establishments. 257. Contract bar rule (Art. a duly certified bargaining agent is allowed oneyear to negotiate for the signing of a CBA. Deadlock-bar rule c. that is why no CE can be filed at this time. An existing CBA. 256: Art. An organized establishment is best distinguished from an unorganized establishment by the presence of a bargaining representative since according to Art. the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter who first acquired jurisdiction. Art. 257: UNORGANIZED None No need to verified Not applicable. or b. The right of self-organization includes the right of the workers to have a bargaining representative OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING for the purpose of collective bargaining. Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office. 40-03 Series of 2003 RULE VIII CERTIFICATION ELECTION Section 2. Duly certified bargaining agent. Organized Establishment v. has one Has to be a VERFIED petition No petition for Certification election EXCEPT within 60 days before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (See Art. The different entry points to a certification election Art. Establishment (The distinctions are important requirements are different. 232) b. the other two are in the implementing rules. The BARS to a CE: Prevents the happening of a CE. Statutory Frame-work Bargaining agent Petition filed Freedom Period Existing. why is there none in unorganized establishments? It has something to do with industrial peace No freedom period. 257: Art. . Can file petition anytime. Take note: In relation to the one-year bar rule. in which case. only the contract bar is actually in the labor code. a. One year bar rule Note: among all the bar rules. the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for consolidation.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations Department Order No. the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all others. Suspension of CE: Prejudicial question rule Detailed Discussion of the Framework Different Entry Points To A Certification Election UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 52 of 139 .

Manila. WHY? Intention of law is to bring in the union. the law it seeks to implement. What is intent and purpose of law for requiring the substantial support rule? Law wants to know the intention of the employees. NO substantial support rule. which is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular rank-and-file employees of the petitioner including the regular project employees with more than one year of service. Significantly the rule is not found in article 256. To rule otherwise would negate the legislative intent in the enactment of Article 232 of the Labor Code which was designed to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the collective bargaining agreement. Prohibition on Certification Election. If they really want a CE. Accordingly. The renewed CBA cannot constitute a bar to the instant petition for certification election for the very reason that the same was not yet in existence when the said petition was filed. — The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253. DISCUSSIONS ON THE FREEDOM PERIOD Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. The mere filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the respondent Director to order the holding of a certification election. The substantial support is only needed when filing for a petition for certification election. Their act was clearly intended to bar the petition for certification election filed by NAFLU. Moreover. Republic Planters Bank Unionv. In line with this policy the SC holds that the administrative rule requiring the SIMULTANEOUS submission of the 25% consent signatures UPON the filing of petition for CE should NOT BE STRICTLY applied to frustrate the determination of the legitimate representatives of the workers. 253-A and 256 of this Code. v. Calleja (1989) Is the contract bar rule applicable where a collective bargaining agreement was hastily UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 53 of 139 . 232. PURPOSE: The purpose of the prohibition against the filing of a petition for certification election outside the socalled freedom period is to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the CBA. subject to the submission of the consent signatures WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD FROM SUCH FILING. The petition for certification election in this case was filed within the freedom period but the petitioner and PASAR hastily concluded a CBA despite the order of the Med-Arbiter enjoining them from doing so until the issue of representation is finally resolved. to implement policy behind Art. We cannot countenance the actuation of the petitioner and the management in this case which is not conducive to industrial peace. the existence of a duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA. may be shown within a reasonable time thereafter but should be before the election. Inc. the parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. Laguesma (1992) The Labor Code provides: Art. Percentage all base: members of an appropriate bargaining unit. As pointed out by public respondent in its comment. Port Worker’s Union of the Philippines v. Laguesma (1996) We start with the restatement of the rule that no petition for certification election may be entertained if filed outside the sixty-day period immediately before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. 211a. the SC holds that the MERE filing of a petition for certification election within the freedom period is sufficient basis for the holding of a certification election. The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented.  When should the substantial support be shown or complied with? It need not be shown at the time of filing of the petition. Associated Labor Union v. Such indecent haste in renewing the CBA despite an order enjoining them from doing so is designed to frustrate the constitutional right of the employees to self-organization. since they already have a bargaining agent. A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. Consequently. bars any other labor organization from filing a petition for certification election except within the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the CBA. DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT RULE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS TAKE NOTE: A union that is merely filing a MOTION FOR INTERVENTION in a CE filed by another union need NOT present substantial support.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations Substantial support rule Must be duly supported by 25% of ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. Laguesma The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. concluded in defiance of the order of the medarbiter enjoining the parties from entering into a CBA until the issue on representation is finally resolved? Article 256 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

242 which enumerates the rights granted to a legitimate labor organization and one of those rights is the right to be chosen as the exclusive bargaining representative. Art.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations  Is the substantial support rule a mandatory requirement? If you strictly follow the letter of the law it would seem to be mandatory. This is best read in relation to Art. However.  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 54 of 139 .  Does a RIVAL union have authority to VERIFY the signatures in the substantial support requirement? No a rival union may not. if the petition does not comply with the substantial support requirement. CONDUCTING AGENCY Art. then it becomes the ministerial duty of the BLR to conduct a certification election. TAKE NOTE: Employer is a TOTAL STRANGER in the process of Certification Election. Telephone Telegraph v. 226 Bureau of Labor Relations. The duty to ascertain whether there was compliance was on the director of labor. may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. Who shall file the petition under Art. Noriel. Hence. 258 EMPLOYER-INITIATED PETITION When can an employer file a petition? Only when it is requested to bargain collectively. Art.” (Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union v.The Bureau shall not entertain any petition on CE or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly existing CBAs affecting the parties except under 253. 232 Prohibition on CE . the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the petition. the BLR may exercise its discretion in determining whether or not a certification election must be conducted. Secretary of Labor and Employment 294 SCRA 640. SOL) A company’s interference in the CE creates a suspicion that it intends to establish a company union (Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. Scout Albano Memorial College v. The bureau shall have 15 working days to act on labor cases before it subject to extension by agreement of the parties. If the petition for certification of election complied with the requirements of the law including the substantial support requirement. 1977)  What is the effect on a petition of certification election of the withdrawal from union membership filed by that union? Once the required percentage requirement has been reached. 75 SCRA 450. “There is no basis for the contention that a duty is cast on respondent director (secretary of labor) to allow a rival labor organization to verify the authenticity of such signatures.When requested to bargain collectively. The one nearer to the employees. (Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. coercion.  VENUE: Where to file? BLR region where union is. If there is no existing certified CBA in the unit. meaning that it has no existing bargaining agent. an ER may petition the Bureau for an election. 1998) Art. the subsequent disaffiliation of the six (6) employees from the union will not be counted against or deducted from the previous number who had signed up for the CE. Art. This is one way the law encourages union registration. Only the department of labor has authority to verify. 257 UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS  When will Art. Employer has NO STANDING to file a MOTION TO DISMISS (Phil. the Bureau shall. however. 258 When the ER may file a petition . On the contrary the presumption arises that the withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress. 257 apply or come into operation?  When an establishments is unorganized. and all disputes grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management rels in all workplaces whether agricultural or non. or for a valuable consideration.agri.The BLR and the Labor Rels Div in the regional offices of the DOLE shall have original and exclusive authority to act at their own initiative and upon request of either or both parties in all intra-union and inter-union conflicts. It cannot be an unregistered labor organization. order a certification election. Noriel (1978) The BLR in the exercise of sound discretion. except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of CBAs which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration. Secretary of Labor). Once that requisite is complied with. 253-A and 256 of this Code. 257? A LEGITIMATE labor organization. after hearing. the Code makes clear that "it shall be mandatory for the Bureau to conduct a certification election for the purpose of determining the representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and certify the winner as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit.

Director could have reconstituted the record and the Director could have decided the appeal on the basis of the reconstituted record. Provided. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 55 of 139 . 91 SCRA 482 HELD: Referral of the appeal to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). A certification election is warranted. 2. v Laguesma (1992) HELD: There has been substantial compliance with the requirements of law when they submitted the required consent signatures several days after the filing of petition. Object of the proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrong nor asserted deprivation of right. As members of the cooperative. at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. that total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast. Labor Code never intended that the original record of a labor case. which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. They are part and parcel of the adequate administrative machinery established by the Labor Code for the expeditious settlement of labor disputes.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations All certification cases shall be decided within 20 days. 259 Appeal from CE orders . Art. assist or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. Of Labor Relations. but culmination solely in an official designation of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees expressed choice of bargaining agent. Inc. Certification election is the fairest and most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force. Will of the majority is controlling. not involvement in the management thereof. Article 256 should be liberally interpreted. Workers' welfare can be promoted through the bargaining process. an official public record. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Such appeal shall be decided within 15 calendar days. The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations should abdicate. Director placed himself in ridiculous situation of having to beg the TUCP for the return of the record. they are co-owners. delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. Port Workers Union of the Phils. for management refused to bargain with the union. However. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative. the minutes of the certification election show that a total of 83 employees were allowed to vote. but is merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and choice and choice of the employees in respect of the selection of the bargaining representative. The fact the members-employees do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form. Director is still empowered to call for a certification election. The Bureau shall conduct a certification election within 20 days in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by Sec. This is frowned upon by the Court. a federation of labor unions is glaringly illegal and void. Instead of ordering an election. The Director's act of referring the appeal is patent nullification of the policy of the Labor Code to avoid delay in the adjudication of labor controversies. Only 37 employees are not members of the cooperative and who are the only employees eligible to form or join a labor union. Article 226. The certification election is still null and void. of Labor. v Calleja(1989) The employees of a cooperative may not join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.  TEST Benguet Electric Cooperative. Plum v. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF ELECTION Art.any party to an election may appeal the order or results of the election as determined by the med arbiter directly to the SOLE on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the SOLE for the conduct of the election have been violated. 3. Non-adversalrial Not a litigation Administrative proceedings determine worker’s choice. It cannot be determined whether or not union was duly elected by the eligible voters of the bargaining unit since even employees who are ineligible to join a labor union within the cooperative because of their membership therein were allowed to vote in the certification election. 260 are mandatory and should be strictly adhered to. Dir. The determination of the proceeding does not entail the entry of remedial orders or redress of rights. When an election which provides for 3 or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast. An owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. Director dismissed the appeal of PLUM based on the decision of the TUCP. 256 Representation issue in organized establishments  To have a valid election. a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the 2 highest number of votes. should be removed from the legitimate custodian and entrusted to a private person. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 1. 259. to Young Men Labor Union Stevedores v CIR (1965) Certification proceedings are investigatory in nature. Noriel (1982) HELD: Employees are deprived of the benefits of a CBA. Delivery of an official public record to a private person is fraught with mischievous consequences.

The minutes of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use of emblem. and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act. the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for consolidation. (d) when a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and a duly recognized or certified bargaining agent has been registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of registration/certificate of creation of chartered local. the posting of huge streamers. Court issued order for the holding of the election and made its ruling on the question as to who were qualified to vote. good faith and justice. the petition may be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry. The results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters. consent or run-off election has been conducted within the bargaining unit within one (1) year prior to the filing of the petition for certification election. JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. 1 may 1) Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election. Where an appeal has been filed from the order of the Med-Arbiter certifying the results of the election. 2) When requested to bargain collectively. representations.  What is a forced intervenor? Section 7. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all others. VOTING LIST AND VOTERS Acoje Workers Union v NAMAWU (1963) Labor unions concerned agreed.The incumbent bargaining agent shall automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced intervenor. Certification Election–Process and Procedure DO No. 99 were able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. Forced Intervenor. or in any manner affected the choice of the workers. Nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins. Section 6 requiring the simultaneous submission of the 25 % consent signatures should not be strictly applied so as to frustrate the determination of the workers’ legit representative. Said labor unions were given an opportunity to make their comments and observations on the list of workers contained in the payroll. order the conduct of a certification election. As to the petition for intervention filed. the running of the one year period shall be suspended until the decision on the appeal has become final and executory. after hearing. 3) If there is no existing registered collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit. A petition for certification election may be filed anytime. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional Offices.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations Furthermore. The doctrine of estoppel is based on grounds of public policy. Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office. EFFECT NON-PARTICIPATION PREVIOUS ELECTION Reyes v. 2 to WHEN file? Sec. an employer may file a petition for certification election with the Regional Office. fair dealing. Where such collective bargaining agreement is registered. POSTING OF NOTICE Jisscor Independent Union v Torres (1993) Grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings. CE is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented and that the CE is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative: The administrative rule in Bk V. Filing of the petition for CE within the freedom period is sufficient for the issuance of an order to conduct the CE. It was viable considering that the principal petitions for CE were valid. vitiated. Trajano (1992) Furthermore. in which case. pin. but also to the use of the Company payroll as the basis for determining who are qualified to vote subject to the approval of the lower court. The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter. not only to the holding of election. administrative rule or WHERE file? Sec. visor. Article 256 is merely directory. the Regional Office shall. as well as the alleged escorting of voters by SMJALU have unduly pressured. the percentage requirement does not apply. failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to the right to participate in future elections. Other protests not so raised are deemed waived. Company presented payroll to said court. (b) when the duly certified union has commenced and sustained negotiations in good faith with the employer in accordance with Article 250 of the Labor Code within the one year period referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph. There is no merit in the argument that the non-posting of the notice of the certification election as prescribed misled and confused the workers regarding the mechanics of the election. except: (a) when a fact of voluntary recognition has been entered or a valid certification. 3 to UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 56 of 139 . No law. Acoje did not move for a reconsideration. 40-03 WHO file? Sec. or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. influenced. (c) when a bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. the same shall be automatically consolidated with the MedArbiter who first acquired jurisdiction. Rule V. .

v Laguesma (1993) PT&T did not possess the legal personality to file a motion to dismiss. This is untenable. Philippine Fruits v Torres (211 SCRA 95) Employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a present. all rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote. Evidence presented failed to sufficiently show that the supervisory employees were in fact performing managerial functions. a determined regular business day. probationary or permanent. This is one instance that calls for the application of the maxim. CHALLENGE VOTER Phil. The law refers to all the employees in the bargaining unit. In Philippine Fruits v. The code makes no distinction as to their employment status. Barerra v. Resolutions of Director confined itself to the issue of the validity of the certification election. Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA binds all employees in the bargaining unit. to prevent a truly free expression of the will of the labor group as to the organization that will represent it. this is precisely the purpose of the exclusion-inclusion proceedings. It is not only the loss of time involved but also the fear engendered in the mind of an ordinary employee that management has many weapons in its arsenal to bring the full force of its undeniable power against those of its employees dissatisfied with things as they are. An employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers. It is merely to stress that such a suit should not be allowed to lend itself as a means. unabandoned right to or expectation of reemployment. Even on the assumption that the vigorous condemnation of the strike and the picketing were attended by violence. The reason that justifies the postponement of a certification election pending an inquiry. Transport Corp. legally remain as such. What PT&T should have done was to question the inclusion of any disqualified employee in the certification election during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer. as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed. The alleged strike and/or picketing of some employees at the company's premises which coincided with the actual conduct of certification election might. ALL EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO VOTE Airtime Specialists. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 57 of 139 . Calleja (1989) Question involving the legality of the strike which was conducted against ADMACOR is an independent issue. Certification election is the sole concern of the workers and the employer is regarded as nothing more than a bystander with no right to interfere at all in the election. What was resolved was whether or not there was compliance with the procedural requirement set by Section 2. Rule VI Book V. perhaps have affected the actual performance of works by some employees. There was nothing in the resolutions which contain any conclusion or ruling by the Bureau that the alleged strike was legal or illegal. the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place. until either the motion to declare their employment status legally terminated or their complaint for illegal dismissal is resolved by the NLRC. it does not automatically follow that thereby the strikers are no longer entitled to participate in the certification election for having automatically lost their jobs. While these supervisory employees did exercise independent judgment which is not routinary or clerical. CIR (1981) If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a company-dominated union. This is not to say that management is to be precluded from filing an unfair labor practice case. but did not necessarily make said date an irregular business day of the company. Torres. lex dilationes semper exhorret. R. employees concerned could still qualify to vote in the elections. as to the bona fides of a labor union does not apply in this case. unabandoned right to or expectation of reemployment. Inc. of the Implementing Rules. are eligible to vote in certification elections. All rank and file employees. If management is allowed to have its way. Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election shall be set during a regular business day. their authority was merely recommendatory in character. Indeed. VOTING DAY Asian Design & Manufacturing Corp v. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to the bargaining unit. have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. whether intended or not. The only exception here is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to Article 258. v Laguesma (227 SCRA 827) Company argues that the employment status of the members of CLOP who joined the strike must first be resolved before a certification election can be conducted. The contending parties agreed that the election should be conducted on that time. Employees who participated in the strike. Telephone & Telegraph Co. are eligible to vote in certification elections. v Director of BLR (1990) In a certification election. employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a present. Rule VI. to determine who among the employees are entitled to vote and be part of the bargaining unit sought to be certified. This was in accordance with Section 2. If the dismissal is under question. the resolution of which pertains to the Labor Arbiter. the result might be to dilute strength of an organization bent on a more zealous defense of labor's prerogatives. Issue of the validity of the certification election pertains solely to BLR.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past cases.

or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly. CERTIFICATION OF DESIGNATED MAJORITY UNION Art.010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote. Objections to the elections have come too late. and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn. 22 of RA 6715] -. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time. pin.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations ELECTION CONDUCT Hercules Industries Inc. Neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the certification election show that Hercules protested the conduct of the certification election. influenced. was ever presented against the election. Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. No informal protest. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. There is no merit in the argument that the non-posting of the notice of the certification election as prescribed misled and confused the workers regarding the mechanics of the election. Slightest doubt cannot be entertained that what possesses significance in a petition for certification is that through such a device the employees are given the opportunity to make known who shall have the right to represent them. Protests against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election proceedings. Timbungco officially made known to the BLR the Kapisanan's disaffiliation from the Federacion FOITAF and obtained a new certificate of registration for the union. APPEAL Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries v. JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. v. Castro (1990) Pajares was arguing that the elections where Timbungco won was invalid because there was no COMELEC and no tally sheet was prepared which set out the number of votes that each candidate got. Copies of said notice were given and posted in conspicuous places. it must be shown by competent and credible proof. Certification election give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer". Noriel (1982) Certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities. The minutes of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use of emblem. These were shown by the minutes of the pre-election conference. PROTEST Timbungco v. Payroll was used as the basis of the voters' list. as well as the alleged escorting of voters by SMJ-ALU have unduly pressured. oral or written. Out of 1. Other protests not so raised are deemed waived. 99 were able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. Torres (1992) Requirements in order that a protest filed would prosper: (1) The protest must be filed with the representation officer and made of record in the minutes of the proceedings before the close of election proceedings.The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the EEs in an appropriate collective bargaining unit UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 58 of 139 . The results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters. certain significant events took place without demur or objection of any sort. ANNULMENT United Employees Union of Gelmart Inv. vitiated. Nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins. or precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers. v Secretary (1992) Notice of the certification election had been issued. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision-making [sec. Phil. Fruits after filing a manifestation of protest on election day. ALU's written protest was based on the same founds invoked by CCLU in its protest. the posting of huge streamers. There was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results for during that period of 2 years. Secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded. Election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently "intimidated" by a union representative. However. Workers on the night shift and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote. Only 15 out of the 98 voters signed their names showing that they actually voted. only formalized more than two months after the close of election proceedings. Noriel (1975) General allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate a certification election. or in any manner affected the choice of the workers. He and the other officers of the Kapisanan negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded in bringing about the execution of a new CBA. Protest was presented only after the lapse of 2 years after it was held. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. visor. and (2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days after the close of the election proceedings. it does not appear that the dispensing by the membership of the Kapisanan with certain technical requirements or formalities in relation to the election had resulted in the deprivation of any substantial right or prerogative of anyone. Jisscor Independent Union v Torres (1993) Grounds of a protest may be filed on the spot or in writing with the representation officer and shall be contained in the minutes of the proceedings. Participating unions were overzealous in wooing the employees to vote in their favor by resorting to such tactics as giving free tricycle rides and Tshirts.

workers and ERs may form Labor Management Councils. hours of employment and other conditions of employment of all the employees in the company but seeks to establish merely a grievance procedure for drivers. subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate. Provided. conductors.  To have a valid election. TAKE NOTE: CBA should be complete AT THE TIME OF FILING of petition for certification election. EXCEPT: TAKE NOTE: Buklod ng Saulog Transit v. Casalla (1956) The provisions of the law contemplates a situation: 1) NOT ONLY when there had been NO AGREEMENT entered into by and between employees or laborers and employer or management as to the terms and condition of employment. 256: Within 60 days before expiration of the five year term of the CBA. an individual EE or group of EEs shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their ER. Only 37 employees are not members of the cooperative and who are the only employees eligible to form or join a labor union.  Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. workers shall have the right.In organized establishments.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations shall be the exclusive representative of the EEs in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. the election is invalid. when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60 day period before the expiration of the CBA. at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. even if amended CBA is submitted wherein the terms and conditions are complete. I am only applying by analogy Trade Union of Philippines v. 253. BARS TO THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION 1) 2) 3) Contract bar rule (Art. It cannot be determined whether or not union was duly elected by the eligible voters of the bargaining unit since even employees who are ineligible to join a labor union within the cooperative because of their membership therein were allowed to vote in the certification election. The certification election is still null and void. but I am not sure. the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and company “does not touch in substantial terms.  At the expiration of the freedom period. 253-A. When an election which provides for 3 or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast. v Calleja (1989) To have a valid certification elecdtion. the minutes of the certification election show that a total of 83 employees were allowed to vote.  What if a CBA is not registered but validly entered into by the parties. 253-A/ Art. The contract bar rule can be validly invoked only if the existing CBA contains substantially those materials that should be included in the CBA. a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the 2 highest number of votes. However. The agreement being incomplete is no bar to a certification election. For this purpose. Benguet Electric Cooperative. it will not bar a petition for CE already filed. 233) Deadlock Bar-Rule One-Year Bar rule a a Bars to a certification election: PREVENTS Certification Election Suspension Rule: merely POSTPONES Certification Election THE CONTRACT BAR RULE (Art. BENEFITS and WELFARE. and inspectors who are members of the Buklod Saulog. to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed in so far as said processes will directly affect their RIGHTS. the rate of pay. the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. 2) BUT ALSO where there had been an agreement that leaves out many or the same matters on which the parties should have stipulated. wages. Provided. 232) GENERAL RULE: The bureau shall NOT entertain any petition for certification election. Inc. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 59 of 139 . Laguesma which says that none compliance with a procedural requirement (in this case it was a late filing of the CBA) should not adversely affect the substantive validity of the CBA. that the representatives of the workers in such labor mgt councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all EEs in said establishment. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. In this case. the ER shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election has been filed. that total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast. will it bar a petition for CE? My opinion is it will. at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. Art. (Freedom period)Art. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit. 256 Representation issue in organized establishments . In the present case. However.

There is need therefore to inquire as to whether a labor organization that aspires to be the exclusive bargaining representative is company-dominated before the certification election. and it becomes the exclusive representative of labor at the conference table. dominate. (d) To initiate. 135547 January 23. Not from time of final resolution of appeal. (Rivera v. the union selected would be decertified and the whole election proceedings would be rendered useless and nugatory. WHO MAY ASK FOR SUSPENSION: Only a union. Such charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that until decided. the timorous. If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a company-dominated union. which was presented on September 5. No allegation has been made that said ULP Case was instituted in bad faith to forestall the Certification Case. In the instant case. Justice Montemayor. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization.DATE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED -. 2) Parties must have negotiated in good Deadlock must have been submitted to voluntary arbitration or a valid subject of a valid notice of strike or lock-out. and when the court finds that said union is employer-dominated in the unfair labor practice case. there is a frustration of the statutory scheme. 1978. It takes two to bargain. There would be instead a unilateral imposition by the employer. `if there is a union dominated by the company. the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period. RATIONALE for suspension the reason being. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 60 of 139 . 248d: ULP: “It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice. 2002) DEADLOCK-BAR RULE 1) faith. Should it emerge victorious.  What if the CBA was suspended? Under Art. an election among workers and employees of the company would not reflect the true sentiment and wishes of the said workers and employees because the votes of the members of the dominated union would not be free. DATE WHEN FINALLY RESOLVED SUSPENSION PREJUDICIAL QUESTION RULE Should be read in relation to Art. The reason is that the certification election may lead to the selection of an employerdominated or company union as the employees' bargaining representative.IF APPEALED. to which some of the workers belong. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period." WHAT SUSPENDS: Formal charge of ULP against the employer for establishing a company union. Espiritu GR no. The pendency of the charge was known to respondent public official by virtue of the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner as intervenor in the Certification Case. 1978. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. in the words of Mr. shall suspend or bar proceedings for certification election.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations  What is the effect of an expired CBA on the contract bar rule? No petition for CE may be filed after the lapse of the 60 day freedom period. or anterior to the Certification Case. ONE-YEAR BAR RULE From time of valid certification election.' There would be an impairment of the integrity of the collective bargaining process if a companydominated union were allowed to participate in a certification election. United CMC Textile Worker’s Union v. BLR (1984) The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31. and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of management. as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed. The timid. The old CBA is extended until a new one is filed. CE cannot be suspended based on a pendency of a formal charge of ULP against a labor organization. 253-A the representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. DATE OF ELECTION -. the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place.

Art. it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. however. Espiritu (2000) A CBA is “a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages. and a living wage. In construing a CBA. and peaceful concerted activities. NATURE AND PURPOSE United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote industrial peace at PAL during its rehabilitation. is composed of a number of individuals. Labor Code. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement. In the instant case. including voluntary arbitration.01 GENERAL CONCEPTS 1. DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. hours of work. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. and all other terms and conditions Rivera v. They shall be entitled to security of tenure. mediation and conciliation. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation. promoted the shared responsibility between workers and employers. Art 211 (a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING and negotiations. that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. Art. (g) of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. local and overseas. It was also PALEA that voluntarily opted for the 10-year suspension of the CBA. 253-A 7. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. par. One is to promote industrial stability and predictability. The State shall promote the PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes. after all. 3 The State shall afford full protection to labor. " 2. and to expansion and growth. humane conditions of work. Noriel (1975) The institution of collective bargaining is a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at work. 233 2.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations Part VII BARGAINING : COLLECTIVE of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement. if requested by either party. it was PALEA. TERMS Art. As labor. make their own rules by coming to terms. Nothing in Article 253-A. The other is to assign specific timetables wherein negotiations become a matter of right and requirement. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to selforganizations. XIII. recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments. The right to free collective bargaining. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 61 of 139 . So much so that Article 249. with the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at PAL. The acts of public respondents in sanctioning the 10-year suspension of the PAL-PALEA CBA did not contravene the “protection to labor” policy of the Constitution. Article 253-A has a two-fold purpose. as modes of setting labor or industrial disputes. prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same.” The primary purpose of a CBA is the stabilization of labor-management relations in order to create a climate of a sound and stable industrial peace. 250 Art. The agreement afforded full protection to labor. NLRC (1986) Collective bargaining which is defined as negotiations towards a collective agreement. Either case was the union’s exercise of its right to collective bargaining. but preventing the latter’s closure. WAIVER IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS 1. Sec. designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. We find no conflict between said agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor Code. labor and management. 252 COLLECTIVELY Art. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS. They shall also participate in policy and decisionmaking processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers. 251 Cf. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. PROCEDURE Art. as the exclusive bargaining agent of PAL’s ground employees. said agreement satisfies the first purpose of Article 253-A. POLICY DECLARATION 1987 Constitution. 253 3. organized and unorganized. includes the right to suspend it. and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification election.6 is one of the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Code. Kiok Loy v. including the right to strike in accordance with law. the courts must be practical and realistic and give due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and the purpose which it is intended to serve. including conciliation. 3. The two parties to the relationship. The assailed PAL-PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation faced by the employer.

Nat’l Union of Restaurant Workers v. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements---In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. and a circle regarding those demands which were left open for discussion on some future occasion that the parties may deem convenient. a cross signifying the disapproval of Mrs. Because it is the policy of the state to promote the primacy of FREE collective bargaining. another union also claimed to represent the majority of the employees of restaurant. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. Tres did not refuse to bargain collectively because they accepted some of the demands while they refused the others even leaving open other demands for future discussion. Those demands were discussed at a meeting.  If they are unable to agree they must follow procedure in the labor code (Art. Request for a conference shall begin 10 days after making such request. That Herrera had agreed to some of the demands shows that she did not refuse to bargain collectively. CODE PROCEDURE Art. Such markings were made during the discussion of the demands in the meeting. such as a check for those demands to which Mrs. including conciliation to foster industrial peace. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. opposite each demand. While Tres denied the capacity of the complaining union to bargain collectively. Felisa Herrera was agreeable. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings.02 BARGAINING PROCEDURE 1." e. 250. Its non. Herrera. 7. This is what they stated in their answer to the petition for certification filed by said union. 250 in summary: 1) All proposal and counter-proposal must be in writing. — The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: a. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both IMPLICATION: Provisions of this code are only supplementary not mandatory with regards to the process of collective bargaining. Tres did not ignore the letter. c. either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. but this condition is merely procedural. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining.  it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. d. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply. it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. b. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. — In the ABSCENCE of an agreement or other VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT providing for a MORE EXPEDITIOUS manner of collective bargaining. 2) Time periods are provided for by law. 250). It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. (211a). No verbal proposal or counterproposal. and c. CONCILIATION PROCEDURE Art. Reply: not later than 10 calendar days from receipt of notice. there appears marks.  The Labor Code authorizes parties to provide for their own procedures in Collective Bargaining but it must be more EXPEDITIOUS that that provided in Art. If the dispute is not settled. PRIVATE PROCEDURE Art. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 62 of 139 . it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. CIR (1964) In a letter sent by the union containing its demands.compliance cannot be deemed to be an act of unfair labor practice. TAKE NOTE: These procedures are DIRECTORY in nature and not mandatory. Art. Art. Furthermore.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations and the exercised voluntary modes in settling disputes. 3. failure to comply with the prescribed time periods will not amount to an unfair labor practice. Under Section 14 of Republic Act 875 whenever a party serves a written notice upon the employer making some demands the latter shall reply not later than 10 days from receipt. If the dispute is not settled. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. 2. this is because they were of the impression that before a union could have that capacity it must first be certified by CIR.

253 Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. 233) a. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. 1. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. (Art. 250d) 2.” How does the law encourage the parties to go into conciliation? Privileged Communication (Art. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. “ 3. Art. Duty to bargain in good faith (Art.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. 2. and e. When there is a collective bargaining agreement. it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. for the purpose negotiating agreement(CBA) of an PURPOSE: b. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party. EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT: Art. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. Art. Art. NEGOTIABLE ISSUES: Meaning of duty to bargain collectively.” 7. POSITIVE STATEMENT NATURE of duty to bargain: Obligation HOW: Mutual to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith. 250e says that : “The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. (Art. — The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. — In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. 250 c). 252): Can be broken down into two components: The positive statement and the Negative Statement. d. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 63 of 139 . It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. 233 Privileged communication. — 1.03 DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. 252 Art. either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. NEGATIVE STATEMENT DUTY: “…but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime. 252 also states that it is part of the duty to bargain to “execute a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the term and 3. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. However. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. with respect to wages. This power to subpoenas merely to force the parties to participate.

which is normally submitted to relevant government agencies. within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request. 250. after the union has been duly recognized by the employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: (b) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. par. Company stalled the negotiation. CIR (1967) Collective bargaining does not end with the execution of an agreement. of Employees (2000) Noteworthy in Art. Unfair labor practice is committed when it is shown that employer. DEADLOCK San Miguel Corporation v. Undoubtedly. (2) proof of majority representation and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251. Republic Savings Bank v. It is a continuous process. -. upon written request. Even during the period of compulsory arbitration before the NLRC. The duty to bargain imposes on the parties during the term of their agreement the mutual obligation "to meet and confer promptly and expeditiously and in good faith . 242 Rights of legitimate labor organizations. Article 249. Petitioner could only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to file its reply. or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement. after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by Union. While it is a mutual obligation. Union has a valid cause to complain against its Company's attitude. Union made a definite request to bargain. Procedure in collective bargaining. and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or question arising under such an agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreement. 252 of the Labor Code is the requirement on both parties of the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. On the other hand. In this case. MEANING OF DUTY Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal. Kiok Loy v NLRC (1986) Collective bargaining are negotiations towards a collective agreement designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. par. Where the disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial to the undertaking. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining. It is a MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a LEGAL OBLIGATION. 1996. . Disclosure of information. with his annual audited financial statements. DO No. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union. or during the collective bargaining negotiation. NLRC (1999) Rule XXII.40-03 Seriies of 2003 RULE XVI COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Section 2.10 reads: "Section 1. petitioner devised ways and means in order to prevent the negotiation. accompanied with a copy of the proposed CBA to the Company not only once but twice. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13. . Petitioner's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. hours of work. (a) of the New Labor Code. — A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: c. 1996. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. as is material and necessary for meaningful negotiations. Grounds for strike and lockout. its communication may be made condition upon a commitment that it would be regarded as confidential to the extent required. The information to be made available may be agreed upon between the parties to collective bargaining. (g) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse "to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. Section I. Company made no counter proposal. including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement. the employer is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. Art. make available such upto-date financial information on the economic situation of the undertaking.A strike or lockout may be declared in cases of UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 64 of 139 . the parties shall. to wit: Art. petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. at the request of either of them. of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V the Labor Code. for the purpose of adjusting any grievances or question arising under such agreement" and a violation of this obligation is an unfair labor practice. . The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion when the following are present: (1) possession of the status of majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code. Assn.In collective bargaining. the union lived up to this requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to petitioner on February 7. To be furnished by the employer.

According to petitioner. private respondent violated the mandatory provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as "the situation between the labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate" This situation. In fact. Hence. specially when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses. claims that the suspension of negotiation was proper since by the filing of the petition for certification election the issue on majority representation of the employees has arose. Can Co. the mere filing of a petition for certification In the case under consideration. Instead of asking the Conciliation Board composed of five representatives each from the company and the union. giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve. The issues which may lend substance to the notice of strike filed by the private respondent union are: collective bargaining deadlock and petitioner's alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement. However. In AOC. CBA provisions should be “construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically. it had no duty to bargain collectively with the union. MINUTES OF NEGOTIATION Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. Marcelo Enterprises. 15 were redeployed. At the negotiations. The Minutes reflects the proceedings and discussions undertaken in the process of bargaining for worker benefits in the same way that the minutes of court proceedings show what transpired therein. petitioner asserts that in view of the pendency of the petition for certification election.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practices. appear more illusory than real. the grounds relied upon by the private respondent union are non-strikeable. We disagree. nothing is considered final until the parties have reached an agreement. however. out of 18 employees. In the same vein. petitioner union’s contention that the Minutes of the collective bargaining negotiation meeting forms part of the entire agreement is pointless. Noteworthy is the fact that the private respondent does not question the validity of the business move of petitioner. of Employees (2000) Petitioner. These agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved. petitioner declared a deadlock. For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. likewise. NLRC (1998) The CBA is the law between the contracting parties the collective bargaining representative and the employer-company. Hence. ruling that: "x x x the main purpose of the parties in adopting a procedure in the settlement of their disputes is to prevent a strike. the authority of the union to negotiate on behalf of the employees was challenged when a rival union filed a petition for certification election. These grounds. and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it. it is but natural for both management and labor to adopt positions or make demands and offer proposals and counter-proposals. In fact. In the Magnolia . Compliance with a CBA is mandated by the expressed policy to give protection to labor. SUSPENSION OF BARGAINING Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings. however. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA. it is presumed that petitioner San Miguel Corporation acted in good faith. out of the 17 original excess. This procedure must be followed in its entirety if it is to achieve its objective. No strike or lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or on issues brought to voluntary or compulsory arbitration. In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the bargaining process there must be a valid petition for certification election raising a legitimate representation issue. such that from an original 17 excess employees in BLD. x x x strikes held in violation of the terms contained in the collective bargaining agreement are illegal. except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. In abandoning the grievance proceedings and stubbornly refusing to avail of the remedies under the CBA. Assn.. x x x" As regards the alleged violation of the CBA." redeployed. petitioner acceded to the demands of the private respondent union by redeploying most of the employees involved. we hold that such a violation is chargeable against the private respondent union. and thereafter. shall not be considered unfair labor practice and shall not be strikeable. it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation. Citing the case of Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. the court declared as illegal the strike staged by the union for not complying with the grievance procedure provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Violations of the collective bargaining agreements. 15 were successfully UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 65 of 139 . It goes without saying. 6 were redeployed and only 12 were terminated. In the case of Liberal Labor Union vs. is non-existent in the present case since there is a Board assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the grievance machinery to resolve the conflicting views of the parties. Phil. that only provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with. to decide the conflict.Manila Buying Station. such promise could only be demandable in law if incorporated in the CBA. Abolition of departments or positions in the company is one of the recognized management prerogatives. filed a notice of strike. one of management’s usual negotiation strategies is to “x x x agree tentatively as you go along with the understanding that nothing is binding until the entire agreement is reached. In the absence of proof that the act of petitioner was illmotivated. This is founded on the dictum that a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one impressed with public interest.” If indeed private respondent promised to continue with the practice of granting across-theboard salary increases ordered by the government.

The rule is that despite the lapse of the formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same as continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have been validly executed.04 BARGAINABLE ISSUES BARGAINABLE ISSUES: wages. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. Rule XI. 253-A and 256 of the Labor Code.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. To that extent. More plainly put. Such an enactment is compulsory in nature. not even the consent of the employees themselves suffices to defeat its operation. It is an existing benefit voluntarily granted to them by their employer. the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement. In the case at bar. The employer has an obligation to meet. Neither can bad faith be inferred from a party's insistence on the inclusion of a particular substantive provision unless it 7. What cannot be denied. the question of minimum wage is not negotiable. Phil. allegedly a legitimate labor organization. gives "a consensual character" to the plan so that it may not be terminated or modified at will by either party.  Importance of determining whether an issue is a mandatory bargaining issue or only a permissive bargaining issue: UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 66 of 139 . There is to be sure no thought of deviating from the basic concept that the area of free play of bargaining between management and labor is not to be constricted." The rule is based on Article 232. Example of what falls under this statement: Stewardess bargains for better uniforms. there is an area placed beyond the sphere of bargaining between the parties. by petitioner of the ruling in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. Example of what does not fall under this statement: A company janitor asks for a car. there is no room for offer and counter offer. however. o o The consequences are different for the refusal to bargain. as such. refusal to bargain will NOT produce a case for ULP. Book V. He must pay what he has to. therefore. It is understandable why it should be so. a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of such agreement. Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced since that case involved a legitimate representation issue which is not present in the case at bar. the adamant insistence on a bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an impasse does not establish bad faith. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement  What do we mean by “all other terms and conditions of employment”? The “other terms and conditions of employment” to become a mandatory bargainable issue must have a connection between the proposal and the nature of the work. Reliance. is that neither party in this particular case is at liberty to agree to an amount lower than that the law requires as to the wages to be paid. Hence. Hence. Nestle Phil. For legislation of that character proceeds on the premise that there is a floor below which the amount paid labor should not fall. Clearly. American Mgt Employees (1973) Even then. That is to assure decent living conditions. Inclusion of the retirement plan in the CBA as part of the package of economic benefits extended by the company to its employees to provide them a measure of financial security after they shall have ceased to be employed in the company. the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. His duty is plain. the petition was filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. in relation to Articles 253. reward their loyalty. The petition for certification election by ACEC. NLRC (1998) Indeed. v. Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. Consequently. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period. It is as simple as that. provides that: " . Almost all of the benefits granted to its employees under the CBA are noncontributory benefits. Cannot strike or lock-out. NOR will it allow that economic weapons be used. The "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3. boost their morale and efficiency and promote industrial peace.… If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code. The fact that the retirement plan is noncontributory does not make it a non-issue in the CBA negotiations. there is no legitimate representation issue and. Since the retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since 1972. If mandatory issue. was filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26. the contract bar rule still applies. of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. V NLRC (1991) Retirement plan is negotiable. Included therein is the question of minimum wages. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. refusal to bargain could lead to: A case of Unfair Labor Practice May be a valid ground for a strike or lockIf permissive issue. demand to increase the benefits due the employees is a valid CBA issue. Employees have a vested or demandable right to a non-contributory retirement plan. 1996. out o Phil American Mgt Co. The old CBA is extended until a new one is signed. What the law decrees must be obeyed. the filing of the petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.

40-03 series of 2003 Book V Rule XVII UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 67 of 139 . the importance of its proposal dawned on it only after the wage orders were issued after the CBA had been entered into. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent or petition for certification election filed outside of the sixty-day period immediately preceding the expiry date of such five-year term shall be entertained by the Department. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. contract bar rule. except the representation status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall. DO No. A party may refuse to enter into a collective bargaining contract unless it includes a desired provision as to a matter which is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. The re-negotiated collective bargaining agreement shall be ratified and registered with the same Regional Office where the preceding agreement was registered. . including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement. shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. Re-negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. be for a term of five (5) years. is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest. it could have refused to bargain and to enter into a CBA with private respondent. The five-year representation status acquired by an incumbent bargaining agent either through single enterprise collective bargaining or multi-employer bargaining  Shall not be affected by a subsequent collective bargaining agreement executed between the same bargaining agent and the employer during the same five-year period. private respondent's firm stand against the proposal did not mean that it was bargaining in bad faith. "The question as to what are mandatory and what are merely permissive subjects of collective bargaining is of significance on the right of a party to insist on his position to the point of stalemate. . giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve.05 THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BARGAINING Art. Abrquez (93) A CBA as used in Art." On account of the importance of the economic issue proposed by petitioner union. as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 Civil Code which governs the relations between labor and capital. and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it. an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. of Labor (2002) A CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the 7. ECONOMIC ASPECT: All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution." On the part of petitioner union. the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. and it is no answer to the charge of refusal to bargain in good faith that the insistence on the disputed clause was not the sole cause of the failure to agree or that agreement was not reached with respect to other disputed clauses. the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.The representation status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining agent which is a party to a duly registered collective bargaining agreement  Shall be for a term of five (5) years from the date of the effectivity of the collective bargaining agreement. It had the right "to insist on (its) position to the point of stalemate. Any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA entered into within six months from the expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such CBA. While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties. but a refusal to contract unless the agreement covers a matter which is not a mandatory subject is in substance a refusal to bargain about matters which are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. refers to a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages. The same requirements and procedure in the registration of collective bargaining agreements prescribed in the preceding rules shall be applied.  As a matter of right. Sec. No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the DOLE outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of the expiry of such five year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the CBA. however. it must yield to the common good. it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically. thus.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations concerns trivial matters or is obviously intolerable. DEFINITION Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. Section 7. On the other hand. it is not. 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months. University of the Immaculate Concepcion v.All provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. Term of representation status. A CBA. POLITICAL ASPECT: Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall. As such. Section 8. 252 of the Labor Code. be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution.

particularly the provision penalizing the immoral conduct of employees. Although it is true that the university and the union may have reached an agreement on the issues raised during the collective bargaining negotiations. application or claim Art.  The Bureau shall keep a registry of legitimate labor organizations. o The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the CBA within 5 days from its submission. pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Labor Code. or when it is at issue in any judicial litigation. 1995 only was set to resolve the distribution of the salary increase of the covered employees. there was no justification for petitioner to invoke the grievance machinery provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Offices of the DOLE for registration. provided that no specific information submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless authorized by the Secretary. including mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration machineries. What are subject of the grievance procedure for adjustment and resolution are grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreement. hence.000. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law. of violation of any provision of this Agreement or any complaint that any employee may have against the COMPANY shall constitute a grievance The instant case is not a grievance that must be submitted to the grievance machinery.00 or in any other amount as may be deemed appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the effective and efficient administration of the Voluntary Arbitration Program.  The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for every CBA a registration fee of not less than P1. 239 Grounds for cancellation of union registration. the Voluntary Arbitrator exceeded his authority when he took cognizance of the labor case. Also. o Any amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund. As in all other contracts. REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS Effect Sub-standard Contract Art. no CBA could be concluded because of what the union perceived as illegal deductions from the 70% employees' share in the tuition fee increase from which the salary increases shall be charged.  Within 30 days from the execution of a CBA." Considering the parties failed to reach an agreement regarding certain items of the CBA. there must be clear indications that the parties reached a meeting of the minds. 231. Article X of the CBA specifies the instances when the grievance machinery may be availed of. REGISTRATION ACTIONS – PERIOD. or when public interest or national security so requires. Damasco (1995) Petitioner was dismissed by the company for violating the Company Code of Conduct. thus: Any protest or misunderstanding concerning any ruling. orders and awards of the UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 68 of 139 . Petitioner insisted that a new CBA was concluded through the conciliation proceeding before the NCMB on all issues specified in the notice of strike. accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. who assumed jurisdiction on January 23. Petitioner contends that the grievance procedure provided for in the CBA was not followed. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. The Bureau shall also maintain a file of all collective bargaining agreements and other related agreements and records of settlement of labor disputes and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators. practice or working conditions in the Company. In this case. 1994 conference. among other reasons. the DOLE Secretary. or any dispute arising as to the meaning. still no agreement was concluded by them because. Section 2. o The Bureau or Regional Offices shall act upon the application for registration of such Collective Bargaining Agreement within 5 calendar days from receipt thereof. o The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Consequently. Duration and Re-negotiation Grievance Procedure Navarro III v. The Court of Appeals found that "there are many items in the draft-CBA that were not even mentioned in the minutes of the July 20. the manner of computing the net incremental proceeds was yet to be agreed upon by the parties. Registry of unions and file of collective bargaining agreements.  The Bureau shall also maintain a file and shall undertake or assist in the publication of all final decisions.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations employer concerning wages. they still have the duty to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement in good faith. The acts of petitioner involved a violation of the Code of Employee Discipline.

the relocation assistance shall be ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against nonmembers. are not parties to the agreement. In the same vein. Contracts which are not ambiguous are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and not beyond their obvious intendment.500. Article XXI of the CBA which provide: “Section 1.800.00) per The above provisions state that employees transferred from Makati City to Bauan. For employees who will be transferred from Makati to Bauan. the benefits under the CBA in the instant case should be extended to those employees who only became such after the year 1984. parties to a CBA shall 1) name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled.00.500.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations Secretary of Labor and Employment. all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. V. For this purpose. any doubt or ambiguity in the contract between management and the union members should be resolved in favor of the latter. is respected as the law between the contracting parties and compliance therewith in good faith is mandated. Lorredo (1993) A collective bargaining agreement. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. even the nonmember employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract.” New Pacific Timber and Supply v.) V. the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress. the latter shall prevail over the former. Individual Grievance Dispute issues and Art. no new agreement had been entered into after the CBA's stipulated term. and certainly may not claim the benefits thereunder. The intention of the parties is primodial.00). The COMPANY shall provide a relocation allowance of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P1. NLRC (2000) Petitioner Company insists that the rank-andfile employees hired after the term of the CBA inspite of their subsequent membership in the bargaining unit. Babcock-Hitachi (2005) The basic issue for our resolution is whether union members are entitled to relocation allowance in light of the CBA between the parties. In a long line of cases. Since in this particular case. This is pursuant to Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides: “(I)n case of doubt. Regional Directors and the Commission. this Court has held that when a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer. if the terms of the contract are clear. Similarly. It is even conceded. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from (1) the interpretation or implementation of their CBA and (2) those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. We do not agree. the rules embodied in the Civil Code on the proper interpretation of contracts can very well govern. it is only fair and just that the employees hired thereafter be included in the existing CBA. but if the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties. Section 2. after he has resigned from said union.” Pertinent are Sections 1 and 2. To exclude them would constitute undue discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to under a new collective bargaining contract to which they would have been parties. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. just like any other contract.” Kimberly Clark Phils. the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control. Aboitiz. provided their transfer is permanent or for a period exceeding one month. Employees can avail this provision provided their transfer is on a permanent basis or for a duration exceeding one (1) month. To begin with. CONTRACT BENEFICIARIES  Who are the beneficiaries to a CBA? All workers in an appropriate bargaining unit month for employees who will be transferred from Bauan to Makati. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. that a laborer can claim benefits from a CBA entered into between the company and the union of which he is a member at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Nature of the Contract Babcock-Hitachi (Phils. Such provisions need no interpretation for they are clear. This is in consonance with our ruling that the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement continue to have force and effect 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. – The parties to a CBA shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. or include in the agreement a procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 69 of 139 . All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within 7 calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA. In Mactan Workers Union vs. we held that “the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. Batangas are entitled to a monthly relocation allowance of P1.

cost is not the only consideration. Republic Savings Bank v. with or without reason. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. They are subject to limitations found in law. the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Master Iron Labor Union v. firing. a collective bargaining agreement. as may be necessary. o However. NLRC (1993) The Corporation's insistence that the hiring of casual employees is a management prerogative betrays its attempt to coat with legality the illicit curtailment of its employees' rights to work under the terms of the contract of employment and to a fair implementation of the CBA. PAL v. but it is clearly too much of an injustice if the employees be made to bear the dire effects thereof. Abad's secretary during his absence. The parties will decide on the number of arbitrators who may hear a dispute only when the need for it arises. the parties are afforded the latitude to decide for themselves the composition of the grievance machinery as they find appropriate to a particular situation. The Corporation's refusal to heed petitioners' request to undergo the grievance procedure clearly UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 70 of 139 . Petitioner could at least have assigned an officer-in-charge to look into the grievance and possibly make his recommendation to Mr. Rather. provides for only a single grievance machinery in the company to settle problems arising from "interpretation or implementation of their collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Even the law itself does not specify the number of arbitrators. As respondent NLRC has pointed out. pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the CBA. the division head shall act on the grievance within five (5) days from the date of presentation thereof. and it is best accomplished in a hearing conducted by three arbitrators. While it is true that an employer's exercise of management prerogatives. Under Section 2 of the CBA aforequoted. demonstrated its lack of intent to abide by the terms of the CBA. Much as the latter were willing to discuss their grievance with their employer. This knowledge. should not prevent the application of the CBA. Article 260 of the Labor Code. such exercise. however. demotion. Public respondent even provided for two steps in hearing grievances prior to their referral to arbitration. CIR Grievance procedure is a part of the continuous process of collective bargaining. or general principles of fair play and justice The Corporation's assertion that it was exercising a management prerogative in hiring outside workers being contrary to the contract of employment which. It is of no moment that Mr. Santos (1993) It is clear that the grievance was filed with Mr. It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue. of necessity. Contrary to petitioner's submission. Thus. We believe that the procedure described by public respondent sufficiently complies with the minimum requirement of the law. It should be remembered that a grievance procedure is part of the continuous process of collective bargaining It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means of maintaining industrial peace. is therefore untenable." It is not disputed that the grievants knew that division head Abad was then "on leave" when they filed their grievance which was received by Abad's secretary. they are not absolute prerogatives. the grievance of employees is not a matter which requires the personal act of Mr.  The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. Private respondent's failure to traverse petitioners' allegations that the NLRC abused its discretion in holding that the provision on grievance procedure had not been exhausted clearly sustains such allegation and upholds the petitioners' contention that the Corporation refused to undergo said procedure. full deliberation on the issues is another. as incorporated by RA 6715. Abad. for it must be remembered that the grievants are workingmen who suffered salary deductions and who rely so much on their meager income for their daily subsistence and survival. Abad immediately looked into the grievance upon returning to work. In effect.". Abad's failure to act on the matter may have been due to petitioner's inadvertence. However. may be looked into by the courts. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. otherwise "the grievance must be resolved in favor of the aggrieved party. Brilliantes (1997) No particular setup for a grievance machinery is mandated by law. and promotion of employees are traditionally identified as management prerogatives. the hiring. At bottom. as well as the CBA. private respondents should not be faulted for Art. which shall act with the same force and effect as if the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as described above. In this matter. an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Indeed.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations 2) Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. Abad and thus could not be delegated. states the expected wages of the workers. the latter closed the door to this possibility by not assigning someone else to look into the matter during Abad's absence. transfer. Their alternatives — whether to have one or three arbitrators — have their respective advantages and disadvantages. does not per se constitute unjust discrimination. if clearly shown to be in grave abuse of discretion. we cannot really impute grave abuse of discretion to public respondent on this issue.

. . Calleja (1989) Petitioner.  Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall. V.  If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months. to our mind. the payment of a signing bonus cannot be justified and any order for such payment. . 5) SICK LEAVE RESERVE OF 15 DAYS UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 71 of 139 . citing Article 232 of the Labor Code. be for a term of 5 years. MERALCO even pledged to continue giving these benefits. Here. 4) SIGNING BONUS In contractual terms. MERALCO control over these funds means that MERALCO may be compelled in the compulsory arbitration of a CBA deadlock where it is the employer. HMP BENEFITS FOR 3) GHSIP. to improve retirement benefits since retirement is a term or condition of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining.  In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the CBA. Any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA entered into within 6 months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such CBA shall retroact to the day immediately following such date.On the other hand. insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. Hence. no certification election may be conducted. constitutes grave abuse of discretion.  All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. In fact. Contract Infirmity Associated Labor Unions v. Quisumbing (1999) In this petition for certiorari.  No petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of the sixty-day period immediately before the date of expiry of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In Foamtex the SC affirmed the order of the Med-Arbiter calling for a certification election on the ground that although a new CBA was concluded between the petitioner and the management. only a certified CBA would serve as a bar to the holding of a certification election. as in Foamtex the CBA was not yet certified and yet the Court affirmed the order of the Director of the BLR which dismissed the petition for certification election filed by the labor union. Without the goodwill.The issue requires a finding of fact on the legal personality of the retirement fund. Manila Electric Co. contends that since the new CBA had already been ratified overwhelmingly by the members of the bargaining unit and that said CBA had already been consummated and the members of the bargaining unit have been continuously enjoying the benefits under the said CBA. these benefits should be incorporated in the new CBA. A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. a) ECONOMIC ISSUES: 1) CHRISTMAS BONUS 2) RICE SUBSIDY and RETIREMENT BENEFITS for RETIREES . MERALCO have long been extending these benefits to the employees and their dependents that they now become part of the terms and conditions of employment. The court reviewed the Secretary’s order and made the following list of economic and noneconomic issues. the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. and to incorporate in this new CBA the Secretary's dispositions on the disputed economic and noneconomic issues.The existence of a separate and independent juridical entity which controls an irrevocable retirement trust fund means that these retirement funds are beyond the scope of collective bargaining: they are administered by an entity not a party to the collective bargaining and the funds may not be touched without the trustee's conformity. a signing bonus is justified by and is the consideration paid for the goodwill that existed in the negotiations that culminated in the signing of a CBA. while the union maintains that MERALCO controls these funds and may therefore be compelled to improve this benefit in an arbitral award. The reliance on Foamtex case weakens rather than strengthens petitioner's stand.The question squarely brought in this petition is whether the Secretary can issue an order that binds the retirement fund. DEPENDENTS and HOUSING EQUITY LOAN Moreover.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations believing that the effects of the CBA in their favor had already stepped into the controversy. The petition for certification election in this case was filed within the freedom period but the petitioner and PASAR hastily concluded a CBA despite the order of the Med-Arbiter enjoining them from doing so until the issue of representation is finally resolved. we rule that the issue should be remanded to the Secretary for reception of evidence as whether or not the MERALCO retirement fund is a 4separate and independent trust fund. the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. however. 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. the MERALCO seeks to annul the orders of the Secretary of Labor wherein the Secretary required MERALCO and its rank and file union (MEWA) to execute a CBA for the remainder of the parties' 1992-1997 CBA cycle. The company alleges that a separate and independent trust fund is the source of retirement benefits for MERALCO retirees. The parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. Contract Duration And Renewals Art. In the absence of any evidence on record indicating the nature of the retirement fund's legal personality.

Any agreement on such other provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within 6 months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining Agreement shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. As the parties failed to reach new agreement. i. private respondent filed a “Petition for Compulsory Arbitration” in the Arbitration Branch for the National Capital Region of the National Labor Relations Commission. the law does not specifically cover the situation where 6 months have elapsed but no agreement has been reached with respect to effectivity. On September 28. Espiritu (2002) Petitioners further allege that the 10-year suspension of the CBA under the PAL-PALEA UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 72 of 139 .. The parties’ CBA had expired on March 15. while . the labor arbiter acted contrary to Art. 5) INCLUSION OF ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE CBA 6) RETROACTIVITY OF THE CBA Art. Uniform Committee and other committees of a similar nature. 1989. Certainly. If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution. 1990. then. - - - - - NON-ECONOMIC ISSUES SCOPE OF THE BARGAINING UNIT ISSUE OF UNION SECURITY THE CONTRACTING OUT ISSUE This issue is limited to the validity of the requirement that the union be consulted before the implementation of any contracting out that would last for 6 months or more. there is no impairment of management prerogatives. such participation by the Union in the said committees is not in the nature of a co-management control of the business of MERALCO. As such. In this manner. is part of an arbitral award. . . it is clear that the 5year term requirement is specific to the representation aspect. One such provision is the principle of hold over. the labor arbiter rendered a decision embodying provisions for a new CBA.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations 6) b) 1) 2) 3) 40-DAY UNION LEAVE anybody else — the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. that in the absence of a new CBA. Therefore. 253-A serves as the guide in determining when the effectivity of the CBA at bar is to take effect. . Under these terms. On February 9. What the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re-negotiated within 3 years "after its execution. the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining parties. 253-A of the Labor Code. private respondent sought the aid of the NCMB on October 30. 4) UNION REPRESENTATION IN COMMITTEES is worthwhile to note that all the Union demands and what the Secretary's order granted is that the Union be allowed to participate in policy formulation and decision-making process on matters affecting the Union members' rights. we hold that any provision of law should then apply for the law abhors a vacuum. as to the order of the labor arbiter states. Another legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties. It provides that the representation aspect of the CBA is to be for a term of 5 years. an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award. public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof. Petitioner also contends that in ordering a new CBA to be effective on March 15. 1990. If such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months. . the expiry date of the old CBA. the parties shall agree on the duration of the effectivity thereof.e. Indeed. Manila Central Line Free Workers Union (1998) Facts: This case arose out of a collective bargaining deadlock between petitioner and private respondent union. duties and welfare as required in Article 211 (A) (g) of the Labor Code. And this can only be done when the Union is allowed to have representatives in the Safety Committee. Court declared that such consultation requirement will go against principle of mgt prerogative." It is in this re-negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock. . In this eventuality. but the deadlock remained unresolved. A. the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached. . this question was among those submitted for arbitration by the parties: Rivera v. What is granted by the Secretary is participation and representation. Significantly. on the other hand. petitioner has not shown that the question of effectivity was not included in the general agreement of the parties to submit their dispute for arbitration. it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. 253-A refers to CBA’s entered into by the parties as a result of their mutual agreement. 1989. To the contrary. Held: Art. 1989. the law expressly gives the parties — not - Manila Central Line Corp. it may be made retroactive to the date of expiration of the previous agreement. Thus. v. in the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The CBA in this case. [A]ll other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be re-negotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. such as herein involved.

However. The aforesaid provision must be read within the context of the next clause. For this reason. dominate. It can be gleaned from their discussions that it was left to the parties to fix the period. the representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. SMC intended to have the terms of the CBA effective for three (3) years reckoned from the expiration of the old or previous CBA which was on June 30. "All other provisions" simply refers to the rest of the CBA. The aforesaid provisions. the terms and conditions of employment (economic and non-economic) can not be questioned by the employers or employees during the period of effectivity of the CBA. Obviously. Under said article. The questioned proviso of the agreement reads: a. San Miguel Corp Employees Union v. a construction must be adopted as will give effect to all. We also do not agree that the agreement violates the five-year representation limit mandated by Article 253-A. in violation of Article 253-A of the Labor Code mandating that an exclusive bargaining agent serves for five years only. Notably. Petitioners’ contention that the agreement installs PALEA as a virtual company union is also untenable. this court stated: There can be no controversy for it is a principle well-recognized. PAL shall continue recognizing PALEA as the duly certified-bargaining agent of the regular rank-and-file ground employees of the Company. the parties are liable to the employees if the transaction between the parties is colored or clothed with bad faith. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. that it is within the employer's legitimate sphere of management control of the business to adopt economic policies or make UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 73 of 139 . In Central Azaucarera del Danao vs. Said proviso cannot be construed alone. v Drilon (1989) HELD: Labor contracts such as employment contracts and CBAs are not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise.” The case records are bare of any showing of such acts by PAL. The ‘union shop/maintenance of membership’ provision under the PAL-PALEA CBA shall be respected. The CBA is a contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and conditions of the agreement. although the purchaser of the assets or enterprise is not legally bound to absorb in its employ the employers of the seller of such assets or enterprise. except representation. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations agreement virtually installed PALEA as a company union for said period. Confesor (1996) Article 253-A is a new provision. before the amendment of the law as far as the representation aspect is concerned. The same can only be restricted by law through the exercise of police power. thus binding only between the parties. CBA and 3rd Party Applicability Rule Sundowner Dev’t. A labor contract merely creates and action in personam and does not create any real right which should be respected by third parties. In the instant case. This new provision states that the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three years. economic as well as non-economic provisions. 6715 (the Herrera-Veloso Law) which took effect on March 21. a company union exists when the employer acts “[t]o initiate. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. Likewise. All other provisions of the CBA shall be negotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. This conclusion draws its force from the rights of an employer to select his employees and to decide when to engage them. It is State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate with management on an even playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were to individually and separately bargain with the employer. taken together. it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the nonrepresentation provisions of the CBA. Thus. Taking it from the history of their CBAs. amounting to unfair labor practice. Mabuhay had nothing to do with the negotiations and consummation of the lease contract bet Sundowner and Syjuco. The "representation aspect": refers to the identity and majority status of the union that negotiated the CBA as the exclusive bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining unit concerned. 1989. the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period. There is no law requiring a bona fide purchaser of assets of an on-going concern to absorb in its employ the employees of the latter. In the CAB. NLRC (1995) A change of ownership in a business concern is not proscribed by law. which provides: b. In construing an instrument with several provisions. Its objective is to assure the continued existence of PALEA during the said period. no outside union can enter the establishment within five (5) years and challenge the status of the incumbent union as the exclusive bargaining agent. the framers of the law did not give a fixed term as to the effectivity of the terms and conditions of employment. clearly show the intent of the parties to maintain “union security” during the period of the suspension of the CBA. labor contracts being in personam. Under Article 248 (d) of the Labor Code. Corp. Court of Appeals. it is undisputed that when Mabuhay surrendered the leased premises to Syjuco and asked Syjuco to offer same to other lessees it was Syjuco who found Sundowner and persuaded to lease said premises. We are unable to declare the objective of union security an unfair labor practice. In the instant case. 1989. the framers of the law wanted to maintain INDUSTRIAL PEACE and stability by having both management and labor work harmoniously together without any disturbance. Manlimos v. the law has allowed stipulations for “union shop” and “closed shop” as means of encouraging workers to join and support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and interests vis-à-vis the employer.

therefore it encompasses all provisions. the refusal of the employer to implement the proper salary scale to respondent Andrada because he sought the help of his union in pursuing what he believed was his right to a salary adjustment. For such a situation is not envisioned in the law. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. Disaffiliation: Doctrine of Substitution Benguet Consolidated. can be extended beyond the three year period prescribed by law in the absence of a new agreement? Until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties. the employees can change said agent but the contract continues to bind them up to its expiration date. The most that the transferee may do. Consequently. Indeed. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 74 of 139 . v BCI Employees and Workers Union—PAFLU (1968) It is unquestionable that the seeking of the union's help by one of its members in connection with the latter's correct wages constitutes proper union activity. NAFLU as the mother union" in participating in the execution of the bargaining agreement acted merely as agent of the local union freely to serve the common interest of all its members. Where there occurs a shift in employee’s union allegiance after the execution of a collective bargaining contract with their employer. Association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. when the liability therefor is assumed by the new employer under the contract of sale. PURPOSE: To avoid creating a gap during which no agreement would govern. In a number of cases on this point. is unfair labor practice. The essential purpose was the affiliation of the local unions into a common enterprise to increase by collective action the common bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. except. the transferee is under no legal duty to absorb the transferor's employees as there is no law compelling such absorption. Inc v. Inc. NLRC (2000) WON the terms of an existing CBA particularly as to the economic provisions. an innocent transferee of a business establishment has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue employing them. the employer may merge or consolidate its business with another. The law does not provide for an exception nor qualification as to which of the economic provisions of the existing agreements are to retain force and effect. Better for industrial peace if effectivity of the CBA is longer. Nor is the transferee liable for past unfair labor practices of the previous owner. for reasons of public policy and social justice. including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances so warranted. they are duty bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreements. Union to whom the employees owe their allegiance has from the beginning expressly avowed that it "does not intend to change and/or amend the provisions of the present collective bargaining agreement but only to be given the chance to enforce the same since there is a shift of allegiance in the majority of the employees at respondent company. or sell or dispose all or substantially all of its assets and properties which may bring about the dismissal or termination of its employees in the process. The New CBA is given PROSPECTIVE effect generally since 253 and 253-A provides for an automatic renewal clause in existing CBAs. Effect f Expiry New Pacific Timber and Supply Co. Such dismissal or termination should not however be interpreted in such a manner as to permit the employer to escape payment of termination pay. the rule has been laid down that the sale or disposition must be motivated by good faith as an element of exemption from liability. It strikes at the very concept of social justice. Locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employee-members in the economic struggle for the fruits of the joint productive effort of labor and capital. or when liability arises because of the new owner's participation in thwarting or defeating the rights of the employees. consisting of employees and members of the local union was the principal party to the agreement.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations some changes or adjustments in their organization or operations that would insure profit to itself or protect the investment of its stockholders. but the CBA continues to exist. Noriel (1977) HELD: Union-NAFLU. is to give preference to the qualified separated employees in the filling of vacancies in the facilities of the purchaser. During the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement executed between employer and employees thru their agent. Elisco-Elirol Labor Union v. the employees can change their agent – the labor union. As in the exercise of such management prerogative. Where such transfer of ownership is in good faith.

shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. that the final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the requirements therein set forth. to weigh such expressed motives in determining the effect of an otherwise equivocal act. moral. Respondent Sol was not connected with any labor organization. coerce” Art. Act 875.  No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed.  Consequently. Petitioners claim that as respondent Sol was merely an employee and was not connected with any labor union. or contribute to a labor organization. nor has she ever attempted to join a labor organization.01 INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 1. 249(a) 2. 248(a) and Art. 4 of the Act. Rep. 248 (a) – “interfere. In cases of this nature. 248(a) and Art. There must thus he a measure of reliance in the administrative agency. 4. Sterling Products Inc. in the first instance. DISINI:  Purpose of the rules on unfair labor practice: protection of right to selforganization and/or collective bargaining  The employee is not only protected from the employer but also from labor organization  Employer is also protected from ULP committed by a labor organization  The public is also protected because it has an interest in continuing industrial peace. o The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices.  Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to selforganization. are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management.  all other cases of ULP enumerated under the said provisions are derivatives of Art. 249(a) are the general grant of protection. including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect. It was incumbent upon the labor arbiter. o During the pendency of such administrative proceeding. Art. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 75 of 139 .  Note the difference between the wordings of Art. 249(a). o the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices. a determination of the validity of the Batik's unilateral Implementation of the JE Program or the Union's act of engaging in concerted activities involves all appraisal of their motives. The term unfair labor practice has been defined as any of those acts listed in Sec. They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days from the time they are submitted for decision.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Part VIII : UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE 8. 249(a) – “restraint. restraint. 212 (k) Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code. which may include claims for actual. coerce”  “interfere” not included in Art. CONSTRUCTION HSBC Employee Union V. it leaves to the court the work of applying the law's general prohibitory language in light of infinite combinations of events which may be charged as violative of its terms. The respondent Sol has never been found to commit any of the acts mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sec. Art. unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management o but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein provided. The Labor Code does not undertake the impossible task of specifying in precise and unmistakable language each incident which constitute. an unfair labor practice. Rather. however. Sol (1963) The next point at issue is whether or not the petitioners herein are guilty of unfair labor practice. DEFINITION AND GENERAL CONCEPT Art. having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. the running of the period of prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall be considered interrupted: o Provided. v. disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labormanagement relations. cannot therefore. exemplary and other forms of damages. the company cannot be considered as having committed acts constituting unfair labor practice as defined in the Industrial Peace Act. 248(a) and Art.  Subject to the exercise by the President or by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code. attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief.  Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. NLRC (1997) Necessarily. or to assist. be considered as having committed an unfair labor practice. 247 Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof. The company. and avowals are not always candid. motivations are seldom expressly avowed. We find this contention to be well-founded. 249 because any act of a labor organization amounts to interference to a right to selforganization  Art.

Article 248(a) of the Labor Code. Standard Chartered Bank. i. to elect their representatives in full freedom to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. Art. 8. or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. subject only to the rules of the organization concerned. be excluded from the Union’s negotiating panel. self-employed people. suggested to the Union President that Umali. restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form association. medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not. The complaint was made only on August 16. (2) In particular. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO) No. agents or representatives: a. 1993 after a deadlock was declared by the Union. rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. Art. In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code. 98 pertaining to the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining. It happened after the parties started to involve personalities.02 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTS VIOLATING RIGHT OF SELFORGANZATION ULP AND MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 76 of 139 . 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. Jr. considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes.. with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations within the meaning of this Article. It is clear that such ULP charge was merely an afterthought. shall have the right to establish and. intermittent and itinerant workers. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. 243.43 Article 2 of ILO Convention No. The Union claims that interference in the choice of the Union’s bargaining panel is tantamount to ULP. LAW NOMENCLATURE AND RELATIONS OF ACTS OF ULP INTERThe aforecited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code. particularly in Article 243 thereof. with the inclusion of Umali in the Union’s negotiating panel.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations 3. President of the NUBE. Parenthetically." Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules. Confessor (2004) "Interference" under Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code The petitioner asserts that the private respondent committed ULP. the negotiations pushed through. the Bank’s HR Manager. join. which provides: ART. when Diokno. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. v. However. to job organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. provides: Article 2 (1) Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts or interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment. industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious. if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union to exclude from its panel of negotiators a representative of the Union. acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means. ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed. and Articles 248 and 249 respecting ULP of employers and labor organizations. Art. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective bargaining. functioning or administration. The records show that after the initiation of the collective bargaining process. 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE to which the Philippines is a signatory. – All persons employed in commercial. without distinction whatsoever. 212 (k) Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code. the Union bases its claim of interference on the alleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali from the Union’s negotiating panel. its officers. etc.e. The accusation occurred after the arguments and differences over the economic provisions became heated and the parties had become frustrated. "workers and employers.. To interfere with. Ambulant. interference in the selection of the Union’s negotiating panel. and if it can be inferred that the employer adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employees. especially considering that such was undertaken previous to the commencement of the negotiation and simultaneously with Divinagracia’s suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its negotiating panel. charitable. shall have the right to self-organization and to form. In the case at bar. COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. substantial evidence is required to support the claim. The circumstances that occurred during the negotiation do not show that the suggestion made by Diokno to Divinagracia is an anti-union conduct from which it can be inferred that the Bank consciously adopted such act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise of the right to selforganization and collective bargaining of the employees.

COMPANY DOMINATION UNION Art. (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with. but in its effort to prevent the prescribed unfair labor practices. agents or representatives: a. Discriminating in the context of the Code involves either encouraging membership in any labor organization or is made on account of the employee's having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code. certainly not every unfair act or decision constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) as defined and enumerated under Art.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Royal InterOcean Lines v. In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop. CONTRACTING UNIONISM OUT TO DISCOURAGE Art. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective Art. "It is the function of the court to see that the rights of self. Thus. 277 g. dominate. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. NON-UNION MEMBERSHIP WITHDRAWAL FROM MEMBERSHIP CONDITION EMPLOYMENT OR AS Art. Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. Despite the employees' right to selforganization.organization and collective bargaining guaranteed by the Act are amply secured to the employee. 1. 2. 4. c. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. Art. These have not been proved in the case at bar. "The protection of workers' right to selforganization in no way interfere with employer's freedom to enforce such rules and orders as are necessary to proper conduct of his business. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. an employer may be held liable under this provision if his conduct affects in whatever manner the right of an employee to selforganize. The decision of respondent GREPALIFE to consider the top officers of petitioner UNION as unfit for reinstatement is not essentially discriminatory and constitutive of an unlawful labor practice of employers under the above-cited provision. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. Art. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters.f. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. labor- UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 77 of 139 . CIR (1960) "The statute goes no further than to safeguard the right of employees to self-organization and to select representatives of their own choosing for collective bargaining or other mutual protection without restraint or coercion by their employer. DISCRIMINATION ENCOURAGE/DISCOURAGE UNIONISM Art. To interfere with. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. with the agreement of labor organizations and employers. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. labor-management committees may be formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the purpose of promoting industrial peace. working conditions and the quality of working life. its officers. his normal prerogative to hire or dismiss them. INTERFERENCE. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. The prohibition is directed only against the use of the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of discrimination. (b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs. so long as employer's supervision is not for the purpose of intimidating or coercing his employees with respect to their self-organization and representation. However. 3. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. (1999) While an act or decision of an employer may be unfair. (d) To initiate. (e) To discriminate in regard to wages. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. 248 of the Labor Code.18 There should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to selforganization. The Department of Labor and Employment shall endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers and employers on their rights and responsibilities through labor education with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Code. interference or oppression because of one's labor or union activities. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. 5. the court must be mindful of the welfare of the honest employer. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. the employer therefore still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees. COERCION RESTRAINT AND management cooperation programs at appropriate levels of the enterprise based on the shared responsibility and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace and improvement in productivity.

Micaller (1956) We are afraid that we cannot now look into points 1 and 2 for they involve questions of fact. and by the controversies and even quarrels between the employees and the superintendent had not therefore led to discharge. and (3) the participation of PHILSTEAM's pier superintendent in soliciting membership for a competing union. Norfolf-Southern Bus Corpn. is NLRB vs. paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. One of such cases. Edler was a competent and efficient employee with a long record of faithful service. discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code. where we said: "Questioning of employees concerning union membership and activities and disparaging remarks by supervisory employees made in such away as to hamper the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees. that the individual authorization required under Article 242. As to the discharge of the president of the union. there is abundant evidence of the questioning of employees as to membership in the union and of anti-union expressions by the company's superintendent made in such away as to discourage union membership. 159 Fed 2d 518. The record discloses that such investigation was started even before it received PMOG's reply stating a refusal to submit proof of majority representation. RETALIATION EMPLOYER TESTIMONY AGAINST Art. deck officers and engineers. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. but only a pretext. However. Employees of an appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. a step allegedly justified by PMOG's refusal to furnish proof of majority representation. and evidence of a controversy between the employer and the superintendent was not the true reason for the discharge. including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members. 7. Phil. cases that may be resorted to where been found guilty of unfair labor practice under similar circumstances and was given the corresponding sanction. The industrial court has made a careful analysis of the evidence and has found the petitioners have really subjected complaint and her co-employees to a series of questioning regarding their membership in the union or their union activities which in contemplation of law are deemed acts constituting unfair labor practice Our law on this point is of recent enactment and so we may find difficulty in determining what acts or circumstances may institute unfair labor practice within its purview for lack of appropriate precedents. Under such circumstances. - Art. Steam Navigation Co. where the following was held: As to the Board's finding of interference. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided. EXACTION. the controversy was a very minor character and furnished to sufficient justification for the peremptory discharge of an efficient employee with a long record of service. (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. v. was merely to ascertain for itself the existence of a duty to bargain collectively with PMOG. (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. NATURE OF ACT Interrogation Scoty’s Department Store v. there are many American This is all the more reasonable in view of the manifest anti-union bias of the company's officers and superintendent and for the controversy with regard to the recognition of the union which had just been revived… Phil. the Board may very well have concluded that the true reason for the discharge was other than the union and her activity in its behalf. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. The asserted reason for the investigation cannot be sustained. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. HarrisWoodson Co. The rule with respect thereto is well settled and was stated by us recently in the case of NLRB vs. (f) To dismiss. It was shown that Mrs. including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members. Marine Officer’s Guild (1965) The acts found by respondent court constituting the foregoing ULP are (1) the interrogation and investigation by PHILSTEAM's supervisory officials of its captains. o Reason for this according to PHILSTEAM.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations bargaining agent as a condition for employment. (2) the subjection of PMOG to vilification. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 78 of 139 . 6. PHILSTEAM admits that it initiated and carried out an investigation of its officers as to their membership in PMOG and whether they had given PMOG authority to represent them in collective bargaining. Edler's testimony. The Company contends that the ground of the discharge was insubordinate language and conduct. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. to determine whether they had authorized PMOG to act as their bargaining agent.FEATHERBEDDING Art. which in our opinion is on all fours with the present. which was accepted by the Board. According to Mrs. have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the Act. it appears that she was discharged in the Spring of 1945 at the time when question of union representation was becoming acute.

though innocent in themselves. any employer who engages in interrogation does so with notice that he risks a finding of unfair labor practice if the circumstances are such that his interrogation restrains or interferes with employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. he advised the strikers that they could use force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings. Employees Assn. The picket line being the natural result of the respondents' ULP. At any rate. 109 NLRB 591. 133 F2d 621).) Espionage Insular Life Assurance Co. who became a "turncoat" and who likewise testified as to the union activities of Atty. 563. And the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is that although the union is on strike. This UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 79 of 139 .. Ltd (1971) The lower Court justified the constructive dismissal of Ibarra allegedly because he committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when.. The letters. exhibits A and B. Ltd (1971) The respondents contend that the sending of the letters. should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light of the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them.. with or without the advice of Ibarra." o whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications. since exhibit A is a letter containing promises of benefits to the employees in order to entice them to return to work. the act of a company president in writing letters to the strikers. CCA 7th. Even if this were true. Insular Life Assurance Co. Inc. 213 F2d 70).another matter which emphasizes the respondents' unfair labor practice. it is not protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution (NLRB v. Inc. o Under this 'doctrine' expressions of opinion by an employer which. the record discloses that the picket line had been generally peaceful. Micaller). v. there is good ground to believe that Encarnacion was made to spy on the activities of the union members. as president of the union. Clearfield Cheese Co. 146 ALR 1045) Indeed.without being coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the collective bargaining. the same cannot be reversed herein. the history of the particular employer's labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference. provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and assurance is given by the employer that no reprisals would be taken against unionists. picketing is inherently explosive. exhibits A and B. "The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day and that their jobs were open for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice. Ibarra's misconduct is at most a misdemeanor which is not a bar to reinstatement. We do not agree. the employer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative Indeed. urging their return to work on terms inconsistent with their union membership. because it is fully supported by substantial evidence. citing NLRB v. Besides. was adjudged as constituting interference with the exercise of his employees' right to collective bargaining (Lighter Publishing. the only evidence presented by the Companies regarding Ibarra's participation in the strike was the testimony of one Rodolfo Encarnacion. PHILSTEAM's afore-stated interrogation squarely falls under this rule. Moreover." (Rothenberg on Relations. (Blue Flash Express Co. The rule in this jurisdiction is that subjection by the company of its employees to a series of questioning regarding their membership in the union or their union activities. but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances.." (31 Am. Thus.by registered special delivery mail at that . Nonetheless. The said letters were directed to the striking employees individually . p. in such a way as to hamper the exercise of free choice on their part. The letters should be interpreted according to the "totality of conduct doctrine. Montgomery Ward & Co. and that incidents happened only when management men made incursions into and tried to break the picket line. Jur. Ricardo Villaruel and others . Insular Life Assurance Co. some such similar actions are illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of interference. Lacsina. restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of their rights to selforganization Such finding being upon questions of fact. constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech. o For under the circumstances. a former member of the board of directors of the petitioner union. 374. v. Employees Assn. frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered.)  BLUE FLASH DOCTRINE The respondent court had found that PHILSTEAM's interrogation of its employees had in fact interfered with. as an active interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives. [CA 9th] 133 F2d 676. it is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with his employees individually in connection with changes in the agreement.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations An employer is not denied the privilege of interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation. and cases cited therein. Polling Speech Insular Life Assurance Co. constitutes unfair labor practice (Scoty's Department Store vs.

restraint or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize. Thus. (a) By its plain terms. Jean Country is inconsistent with this Court's past interpretation of 7. or an ex-employee . (b) At least as applied to nonemployee union organizers. or surveillance thereof. not on unions or their nonemployee organizers. adopted." "free coffee and occasional movies. NLRB L. Insular Life Assurance Co. . well before any union activity at the plant. The information obtained by means of espionage is invaluable to the employer and can be used in a variety of cases to break a union. the employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union." It is only when reasonable access to employees is infeasible that it becomes appropriate to balance 7 and private property rights.' An employee persisted after being warned of the rule in soliciting union membership in the plant by passing out application cards to employees on his own time during lunch periods. the NLRA confers rights only on employees. or by fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer. Likewise violative of the right to organize. . "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of subsection (a) (1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act. Ltd (1971) Indeed." Economic Coercion And Inducement Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. Ed. restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization than such activity even where no discharges result. wage increases given for the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union. . when they are represented by a union. profitsharing. Babcock's teaching is straightforward: 7 simply does not protect nonemployee union organizers except in the rare case where "the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through the usual channels." and "arrangements" for their families. v. they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization. (c) The facts in this case do not justify application of Babcock's inaccessibility exception. 3 other employees were discharged for wearing union steward buttons in the plant after being requested to remove the insignia. form and join labor organizations are the following acts: o the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal" employees of a company shortly after the making of a request by the union to bargain. "It has been held in a great number of decisions that espionage by an employer of union activities. accident insurance. o 'Nothing is more calculated to interfere with. It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to striking employees individually." Because the union failed to establish the existence of any "unique obstacles" that frustrated access to Lechmere's employees. Because Lechmere's employees do not reside on its property. v. NLRB 324 US 793 (1945) The employer. military aircraft manufacturer. The union was at that time active in seeking to organize the plant. of unfair labor practice. Held: the Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the Board to strike the balance in UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 80 of 139 . the Board erred in concluding that Lechmere committed an unfair labor practice by barring the nonemployee organizers from its property. since the employees thus offered reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be." Union Solicitation And Distribution Of Literature And Materials Lechmere. Nor does the fact that they live in a large metropolitan area render them "inaccessible. an employer cannot be compelled to allow nonemployee organizers onto his property.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations act of the respondents is considered unjustifiable interference in the union activities of the petitioners and is unfair labor practice. v. they are presumptively not "beyond the reach" of the union's message. when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots. a general rule against soliciting which read as follows: 'Soliciting of any type cannot be permitted in the factory or offices. made about 6 weeks after the strike started. as a rule. by officials or supervisory employees of the employer.' o The unfair labor practice is committed whether the espionage is carried on by a professional labor spy or detective. and the employer's statement. and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. Inc. they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and. form and join unions as to constitute unfair labor practice . consequently. to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work. and a new building to work in. Republic Aviation Corp. so they would abandon the strike and return to work. . are such instances of interference." "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours. or for the purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work. 2d 79 (1992) Lechmere did not commit an unfair labor practice by barring nonemployee union organizers from its property. The employee was discharged.

the right to exclude from property has been required to yield to the extent needed to permit communication of information on the right to organize. 105 (1956). 7 rights and property rights:  "Organization rights are granted to workers by the same authority. employee access being through several gates. Babcock & Wilcox Co. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to the employees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative. which justifies banning such insignia. Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. A “runaway shop” in this sense. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 81 of 139 . More so when as in this case there is a clause in the CBA where the employees are classified into those who are members of the union and those who are not. The CA refused enforcement of the Board's order on the ground that the Act did not authorize the Board to impose a servitude on an employer's property where no employee was involved. NLRC (1999) The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is both the president of Complex and Ionics and that both companies have the same set of Board of Directors. The Court holds that it is the prerogative of management to regulate. Held: The Union's contentions are untenable.." Discrimination Wise and Co. a runaway shop. c. is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. however. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. NATU (1989) The center of controversy in this petition is whether the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its non-union member employees is discriminatory against its workers who are union members? a. b. Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex. It appears to have been done hi good faith and without ulterior motive. Run-Away Shop Complex Electronics Employees Association v. the union may not always insist that the employer aid organization. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics. the court serves notice that it will not hesitate to strike down any act of the employer that tends to be discriminatory against union members.S. inc. Approximately 90% of the employees drove to work in private cars. v. However. Only employees and deliverymen normally used the parking lot. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex. A “runaway shop” is defined as one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes. and the company maintained a parking lot for the employees. The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by the same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate personalities. and held the company guilty of an unfair labor practice for enforcing the nodistribution rule and thereby denying union organizers limited access to company property. This flows from the established rule that labor law does not authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its business. Guiding principle for adjusting conflicts between Sec.  The employer may not affirmatively interfere with organization. all aspects of employment. the National Government. Inc. a right that cannot be abridged unless the employer is able to establish that a special circumstance exists. Accommodation between the two must be obtained with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other. Both the employer and the union members are bound by such agreement. Employees Union. Respondent union can not claim that there is grave abuse of discretion by the petitioner in extending the benefits of profit sharing to the non-union employees as they are two (2) groups not similarly situated. NLRB v. Ionics was already existing as an independent company.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations favor of employees challenging an employer's nosolicitation policy. Wise and Co. but this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of the corporation. The Board found that the company's parking lot and the walkway leading from it to the plant entrance were the only "safe and practicable" places in the vicinity of the plant for distribution of union literature. It is only because of the peculiar circumstances of this case showing there is no such intention that this court ruled otherwise. They do not derive and enjoy the benefits under the CBA. they derive their benefits from the terms and conditions of the CBA contract which constitute the law between the contracting parties. The plant buildings were enclosed within a fence. The Board ordered the company to rescind its nodistribution rule insofar as it related to nonemployee union representatives seeking to distribute union literature on the parking lot and walk-way area. These nonunion employees are not covered by the CBA. In the case of the union members.  But when the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by non-employees to communicate with them through the usual channels. The Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that employees have a presumptive right to wear union insignia.000 people. 351 U. d. The company had a rule forbidding the distribution of literature on company property. that preserves property rights. according to its discretion and judgment. In this case. SC affirmed on the ground that the availability of alternative channels of communication made the intrusion on the employer's property rights ordered by the Board unwarranted. operated a manufacturing plant on a 100-acre tract about one mile from a community of 21.

machinery and materials. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. General Milling Corp. If the dispute is not settled. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. protect fraud. which to our mind is not the proper remedy to question the amount of benefits due the complainants who will be retrenched at the closure of the Lite-On Line. either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless. VIOLATE DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. gave a wrong signal to customers of Complex. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. We hold that GMC’s refusal to make a counterproposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. 253 Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. Court of Appeals (2004) GMC’s failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. Art. 8. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 82 of 139 . provided it is the representative of the employees. either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date.  The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation o to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect o to wages. Art. which consequently resulted in the loss of employment of not only a few but to all the of the workers. (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. and as a protection to their interest pulled-out of business from Complex who had no recourse but to cease operation to prevent further losses. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations (c) To violate the duty. It may be worth saying that the right to strike should only be a remedy of last resort and must not be used as a show of force against the employer. or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union. d. e. and The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Well-settled is the rule that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and stockholders. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. o the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: a. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. or defend crime. b. The indiscretion committed by the Union in filing the notice of strike. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the workers. v. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. This fiction of corporate entity can only be disregarded in certain cases such as when it is used to defeat public convenience. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. justify wrong. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply.03 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. o It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.  In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. Art. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 1. As very clearly established. c.  When there is a collective bargaining agreement. it shall be the duty of employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. Art. the closure was triggered by the customers' pull-out of their equipment. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. o However. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. Art. who were alarmed by the pending labor dispute and the imminent strike by the union. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board.

We take judicial notice of the fact that honest differences in construction may arise in the actual application of contractual provisions. NEGOTIATION OR ATTORNEY’S FEES Art. violations of collective bargaining agreements were no longer deemed unfair labor practices . NLRC (1984) Despite a finding of petitioner's entitlement to her claim for reimbursement.04 EMPLOYER FUNCTIONS AND ULP San Miguel Corp. Labor Code. on March 21. among others. VIOLATE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BARGAINING Jurisdiction over such violations was withdrawn from the Labor Arbiters and vested in the voluntary arbitrator. it was only after PAL's motion for reconsideration of November 21. Employees Union v. Accordingly. Bersamira (1990) A "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of the Labor Code includes "any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. or arranging the terms and conditions of employment.  For purposes of this article. and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment) being in fact enjoined not to "entertain disputes. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. At bottom.1988 had been filed and was awaiting resolution before the NLRC that said law became effective. 1989. regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. except those which are gross in character.  x x x. adjudged by him. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. does exist herein is evident. making it liable for unfair labor practice. grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and *** (instead) immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. o a labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1]. or voluntary arbitration provided in the CBA. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. 6715) had not come into effect. Perforce. That a labor dispute. and the contractual workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other. An error in interpretation without malice or bad faith does not constitute unfair labor practice. NLRC (1997) Thus." While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between itself. the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC is. as defined by the law. fixing. we are not prepared to pronounce respondent SIA guilty of unfair labor practice. in effect. x x x Singapore Airlines Employees Association v. at the time that the proceedings were initiated before the former. 1989. the former (including the Commission itself. the terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof (ibid). on the one hand. As already observed. tenure and conditions of their employment and the arrangement of those terms are thus involved bringing UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 83 of 139 . or 3. the law amending their jurisdiction (R. under the circumstances. PAL V. (h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute. Under the circumstances. o Put differently. SIA's refusal to grant benefits was not a willful evasion of its obligations under the CBA but was due to an honest mistake in the belief that the same is not covered by the aforementioned CBA provision.A.and were considered mere grievances resolvable through the appropriate grievance machinery. GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively. that they be absorbed into the working unit of SanMig. Art. guilty of unfair labor practice. what the Union seeks is to regularize the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite and. This matter definitely dwells on the working relationship between said employees visa-vis SanMig." PAL may not be regarded as precluded from impugning the jurisdiction of the Arbiter and the Commission because. maintaining. gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. 8.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals. its Regional Offices. the existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. 2.except those gross in character . supra) provided the controversy concerns. Art. no estoppel of the right to question jurisdiction can be ascribed to PAL. as of March 21. and as defined by law. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement Art. and thereafter appealed to and resolved by the latter adversely to PAL. changing. 261 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. o Terms.

Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations
the matter within the purview of a labor dispute. o Further, the Union also seeks to represent those workers, who have signed up for Union membership, for the purpose of collective bargaining. Obvious then is that representation and association, for the purpose of negotiating the conditions of employment are also involved. In fact, the injunction sought by SanMig was precisely also to prevent such representation. o Again, the matter of representation falls within the scope of a labor dispute. Neither can it be denied that the controversy below is directly connected with the labor dispute already taken cognizance of by the NCMB-DOLE (NCMBNCR-NS-O1-021-89; NCMB NCR NS-01093-83). As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals. As explicitly provided for in Article 217 of the Labor Code, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 6715 on 21 March 1989, since the suit below was instituted on 6 March 1989, o Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers including " 1. unfair labor practice cases; 2. those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; and 3. cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of striker and lockouts. The claim of SanMig that the action below is for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code would not suffice to keep the case within the jurisdictional boundaries of regular Courts. o That claim for damages is interwoven with a labor dispute existing between the parties and would have to be ventilated before the administrative machinery established for the expeditious settlement of those disputes. o To allow the action filed below to prosper would bring about "split jurisdiction" which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice We recognize the proprietary right of SanMig to exercise an inherent management prerogative and its best business judgment to determine whether it should contract out the performance of some of its work to independent contractors, o However, the rights of all workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law (Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution) equally call for recognition and protection. Those contending interests must be placed in proper perspective and equilibrium. Republic Savings Bank v. CIR (1967) It is for the Court of Industrial Relations, in the first instance, to make the determination, "to weigh the employer's expressed motive in determining the effect on the employees of management's otherwise equivocal act" (NLRB vs. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226). For the Industrial Peace Act does not undertake the impossible task of specifying in precise and unmistakable language each incident which constitutes an unfair labor practice, rather, it leaves to the court the work of applying the Act's general prohibitory language in the light of infinite combinations of events which may be charged as violative of its terms

8.05 MOTIVE, CONDUCT AND PROOF
1. EMPLOYER MOTIVE AND PROOF Visayan Bicycle Manuf. Co. v. National Labor Union (1965) The findings of the CIR to the foregoing effect are supported by substantial evidence. No reason obtains to alter the conclusion that Besana and Rodiel were in reality dismissed because of their union activities and not because of their violation of a company rule against fight in the premises or during working hours. Furthermore, the so-called violation of company rules having been brought about by the company itself, thru the recent employment of Saturnino Reyes and Silvestre Pacia who provoked the fight as above indicated, the same cannot be regarded as a ground to punish the aforementioned employees. Such being the case, the dismissal of Besana and Rodiel constituted unfair labor practice under Section 4(a) (1) and (4) of Republic Act 875:
Sec. 4. Unfair Labor Practices.(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer: 1) To interfere with, restrain ,or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section three;" 4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: . . ."

Rothenberg has this to say:
". . . it can be established that the true and basic inspiration for the employer's act is derived from the employee's union affiliations or activities, the assignment by the employer of another reason, whatever its semblance or validity, is unavailing.

Thus, it has been held that the facts disclosed that the employer's acts in discharging employees were actually prompted by the employer's improper interest in the affected employee's union affiliations and activities, even though the employer urged that his acts were predicated on economic necessity, desire to give employment to more needy persons, lack of work, cessation of operations, refusal to work overtime, refusal of non-union employees to work with union employees, seasonal lay-off, libelous remarks against management, violation of company rules." Since the only reason or basis for Besana and Rodiel's dismissal was in fact their actuation as officers of VIBEMWU, the dismissal is clearly discriminatory.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
84 of 139

Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations
It is this inconsiderate act of power that makes a subordinate a rebel, it is this malicious tactic that forces labor to dislike management; this unjustifiable conduct that creates a gap between management and labor; and this attitude that makes the laborer hate the officials of the company to the detriment of all efforts to harmonize management and labor for the benefit of both as envisioned by the Industrial Peace Act. So plain from the record is the bad faith that attended the company's deliberate and calculated act of unfair labor practice that we find in the present appeal an obvious attempt to delay and carry on a pretense which this Court can ill afford to let go without stern disapproval. Me-Shurn Corp. v. Me-Shurn Workers Union (2005) All these factors strongly give credence to the contention of respondent’s that the real reason behind the shutdown of the corporation was the formation of their union. Note that, to constitute an unfair labor practice, the dismissal need not entirely and exclusively be motivated by the union’s activities or affiliations. It is enough that the discrimination was a contributing factor. If the basic inspiration for the act of the employer is derived from the affiliation or activities of the union, the former’s assignment of another reason, no matter how seemingly valid, is unavailing. Concededly, the determination to cease operations is a management prerogative that the State does not usually interfere in. Indeed, no business can be required to continue operating at a loss, simply to maintain the workers in employment. That would be a taking of property without due process of law. But where it is manifest that the closure is motivated not by a desire to avoid further losses, but to discourage the workers from organizing themselves into a union for more effective negotiations with management, the State is bound to intervene. 2. TOTALITY OF CONDUCT RULE AND EFFECT OF FAILURE OF ACT Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees v. Insular Life Assurance Co. (1971) Totality of Conduct Rule The letters, exhibits A and B, should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light of the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them. The letters should be interpreted according to the "totality of conduct doctrine,
"...whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications, but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. Under this 'doctrine' expressions of opinion by an employer which, though innocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particular employer's labor relations or antiunion bias or because of their connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference." (Rothenberg on Relations, p. 374, and cases cited therein.)

Effect of Failure of the Act Interference constituting unfair labor practice will not cease to be such simply because it was susceptible of being thwarted or resisted, or that it did not proximately cause the result intended. For success of purpose is not, and should not, be the criterion in determining whether or not a prohibited act constitutes unfair labor practice. "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of subsection (a) (1) is o whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act, o and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining." (Francisco, Labor Laws 1956, Vol. II, p. 323, citing NLRB v. Ford, C.A., 1948, 170 F2d 735).

8.06 ENFORCEMENT, SANCTIONS
1. PARTIES AGAINST COMMITTED

REMEDIES

AND

WHOM

ULP

Art. 212 (e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer. (f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment. (g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. 2. PARTIES LIABLE FOR ACTS EMPLOYER Art. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
85 of 139

Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations
o LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. 3. PROSECUTION PERIOD CIVIL ASPECT Art. 247 Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution  xxx  Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein provided.  Subject to the exercise by the President or by the Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, o the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. o The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices. They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days from the time they are submitted for decision.  Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. AND PRESCRIPTIVE Provided, however, that the final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the requirements therein set forth.

Gochangco Workers Union v. NLRC (1988) Before Batas Blg. 7029 was enacted into law, unfair labor practices were considered administrative offenses, and have been held akin to tort, wherein damages are payable. We therefore not only order herein the reinstatement of the petitioner and the payment of backwages (including cost-of-living allowances) to them, but impose as well moral and exemplary damages. With respect to backwages, we hold the respondent E.G. Gochangco, Inc. liable, in line with the recommendation of the Solicitor General and in accordance with accepted practice, for backwages equivalent to 3 years without qualification or deduction. 4. COMPROMISE Gochangco Workers Union v. NLRC (1988) In any event, we have held that unfair labor practice cases are not, in view of the public interest involved, subject to compromises. AFP Mutual Benefit Association Inc. v. FP MBAI-EU (1980) In labor jurisprudence, it is well-established that quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from the unfair labor practice of the employer. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public policy and, therefore, null and void. The acceptance of termination pay does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. In the Cariño case, supra, the Supreme Court, speaking thru Justice Sanchez, said:
"Acceptance of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The reason is plain. Employer and employee, obviously, do not stand on the same footing. The employer drove the employee to the wall. The latter must have to get hold of money Because, out of job, he had to face the harsh necessities of life. He thus found himself in no position to resist money proffered. His then, is a case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however, is that petitioners did not relent their claim. They pressed it. They are deemed not to have waived any of their rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur."

CRIMINAL ASPECT Art. 247 Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution  xxx  No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. o During the pendency of such administrative proceeding, the running of the period of prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall be considered interrupted:

Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. v. NLRC (1997) The agreement entered into by the company and the union, was in the nature of a compromise agreement, i.e., "an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the manner which they agree on, and which everyone of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing."

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
86 of 139

or orders. when there was substantial compliance with the rule. 247 Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution  xxx  Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. PENAL REMEDIES Art. For this reason. Also. However. are excessive. . thus it binds the parties. Electric Coop. 5. they are distributed among members in correlation with the resources of the association utilized. when there are special meritorious circumstances and issues. The private respondents' cause likewise fails in light of Article 2037 of the Civil Code. In determining the amount of damages recoverable. in the agreement. v. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the offender are taken into account. the business. they could no longer relitigate. NLRC (2000) Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. this Court relaxed the rule to resolve controversies on the merits. However. as amended by Republic Act No. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC therefore erroneously reviewed an issue which had already been laid to rest by the parties themselves and which. we made technical considerations to give way to equity and justice.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Thus. awards. 223." the agreement herein was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement. we are cognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare of its own members. the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional.  xx Nueva Ecija I. so that on balance. DISINI: Did the Reformist case abandon the doctrine laid down by the court in Gochanco and AFP Mutual Benefit Association? Note that the Reformist case involved a compulsory arbitration. Appeal . having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. and noncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment final and executory. to our mind. xxx In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. Inc. are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management. the Labor Code bestows finality to unvitiated compromise agreements. On this score. applying the principle of res judicata. Cooperatives help promote economic democracy and support community development. clearly provides: "Art. While we do not abandon the rule that "unfair labor practice acts are beyond and outside the sphere of compromises. which gives compromise agreements "the effect and authority of res judicata" upon the parties to the same. Either equally or proportionally. specifically. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 87 of 139 . . However. in a number of cases. REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS CIVIL REMEDIES Art. we find it proper in this case to impose moral and exemplary damages on private respondent." The Labor Code. including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect. each party made concessions in favor of the other to avoid a protracted litigation. Implication: One may argue that it is only applicable to a case where the issue on ULP was to be resolved in a compulsory arbitration and the parties entered into a compromise agreement. awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions.Decisions. It is our view that herein private respondents had not fully acted in good faith. and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.  No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor practice was committed. 6715. 247 Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution  xxx  Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. the damages awarded by the labor arbiter.x x x We relaxed the requirement of posting a supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal. Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to selforganization. even when effected without judicial approval.

(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities o for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.  The Constitution and the law set limitation for the exercise of the right to strike or lock-out. 4. the law has created several agencies. shall continue to be recognized and respected. as amended. guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. NLRC (1991) Article 263 of the Labor Code. the Labor-Management Advisory Board. o consistent with the national interest. Constitution Labor Code In accordance with law Consistent with National Interest 3. On the other hand. which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. LIMITATIONS Bisig ng Manggagawa. paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 mandate the following procedural steps to be followed before a strike may be staged:  filing of notice of strike. is not without legal restrictions. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Article 8 1.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations Part IX : CONCERTED ACTIVITIES 9.  It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory. the same Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employer to lockout. The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are concerned are: strikes-the temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Article XIV of the Constitution. usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute." A similar right to engage in concerted activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally recognized in respect of employers. Union v. and boycotts-the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or services and to persuade others to a like refusal. collective bargaining and negotiations. 263 Strikes. PURPOSE AND MEANS TEST  Purpose: For purpose of enforcing right to: 1. In this connection. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure: (d) The right to strike. taking of strike vote. the counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout-the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute." The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed therefor. provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country. v. the Department of Labor. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC. . meaning.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout o on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes. shall continue to be recognized and respected. Julian (2004) Indeed. Section 3  It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self. namely: the Bureau of Labor. and the Court of Industrial Relations. while constitutionally recognized. the right to strike. xx Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike. 2. STATUTORY Art. The Labor Code regulates the exercise of said right by balancing the interests of labor and management in the light of the overarching public interest. Self-Organization (Strikes against ULP) and 2. NLRC (1993) For the first time in our constitutional history. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 88 of 139 . picketing-the marching to and fro at the employer's premises. . and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment.organization. picketing and lockouts. XIII. to prevent or avert them and to implement section 6. o and peaceful concerted activities.  However. Stamford Marketing Corp v. and peaceful concerted activities. It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. consistent with the national interest. Thus. collective bargaining and negotiations. Collective bargaining and negotiations (economic strikes based on bargaining deadlock) Means: Peaceful and in accordance with law - - -  - Luzon Marine Dept. the fundamental law of our land mandated the State to ". It is the most regulated activity. Roldan (1950) The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts because of their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social order and the public interests. including the RIGHT TO STRIKE in accordance with law. etc. CONSTITUTION Art.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES 1. declares that in line with "the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining.

employees from the knitting department also joined in picket.  The immediate need to hear and resolve these ex parte applications does not provide any excuse to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of indiscriminate injunctions. DEFINITION Art. supra. the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. This equalizing stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondent. The placards that the picketers caused to be displayed arose from matters concerning terms or conditions of employment as well as the association or representation of persons in negotiating.. 212(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating.  They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before staging a strike filing of notice of strike.  In light of the genesis of the right to strike.02 STRIKE ACTIVITY 1." Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with before a temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute. we ruled that these steps are mandatory in character. the purposes for which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required cannot be achieved. when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations including the right to strike in accordance with law. i. Overseas. When that happens. should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of extreme necessity. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. thru concerted action. S. The members and the supporters of the petitioner union. the relationship of employer and employee continues until one or the other of the parties acts to sever the relationship or they mutually act to accomplish that purpose UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 89 of 139 . it ought to be obvious that the right should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of labor. but not the waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law. bereft of an adequate remedy at law. 1989. Even the liberal US Federal Constitution did not elevate the right to strike to a constitutional level.  In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. There is nothing on record showing that the union members and the supporters who formed a picket line in front of the respondent’s compound were assigned to the finishing department. et al. The allegation that there can be no work stoppage because the operation in the Dyeing and Finishing Division had been shutdown is of no consequence. enactment of a law implementing the right to strike was an inevitability. CA (2005) A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.  Father Joaquin G. Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation-Solidarity Unions in the Phil v. fixing.  With a constitutional matrix. This is as it ought to be. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment.. maintaining. taking of strike vote. they unduly tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital.J. ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. Zamora (1986) The pilots' mass action was not a strike because employees who go on strike do not quit their employment. fixing. Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional status to the right to strike. Enriquez v.  Often times.. maintaining.  It bears stressing that the other divisions were fully operational. an intentional replication of RA 875. the deleterious effects of a wrongfully issued. RA 6715 came into being on March 21."  This constitutional imprimatur given to the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor. thus: If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory. should be reduced to the barest minimum.e. NLRC (1995) Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided for in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code. for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike.  As can be clearly inferred from the spot reports. 9..: the constitutional recognition of the right to strike does serve as a reminder that injunctions. however. for the moment. caused a temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial dispute.. Bernas. headed by petitioner Tomaroy. Its issuance. The blockade of the delivery of trucks and the attendance of employees from the other departments of the respondent meant work stoppage. Stated otherwise. To be sure. regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. Lapanday Workers Union v. and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment. it behooves hearing officer receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. Ordinarily. as amended.

the issue of whether the retirement/resignation of ALPAP members on December 12. therefore. however. the said pilots' rank disregard for the compulsory orders of the industrial court and their daring and calculating venture to disengage themselves from that court's jurisdiction. it is worthwhile to observe that as the law defines it. namely the complete unity of the Union members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site in order to generate the maximum persuasive force that will gain for them not only public sympathy for the validity of their cause but also immediate action on the part of the corresponding government agencies with jurisdiction over the issues they raised against the local police. the dispute below having been certified as existing in an industry indispensable to the national interest. citing Section 2[1] of the Industrial Peace Act which defines 'Strike' as 'any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial dispute'. Moreover. 1977 together with Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines vs." The strained construction of the CIR that such stipulated working shifts deny the workers the right to stage a mass demonstration against police abuses during working hours.M. under pain of dismissal. as amended. We further ruled in the Republic Savings Bank case. 1970 was a concerted activity protected by law was put to rest in Chavez vs. their "protest retirement/resignation" was not a concerted activity which was protected by law [First National Bank of Omaha vs. L-33705. the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged police persecution. neither employers nor employees should be allowed to make of judicial authority a now-you've-got-it-now-you-don't affair. "a potent means of inhibiting speech. as mere 'temporary stoppage of work'. particularly those who on account of their highly advanced technical background and relatively better life status are far above the general working class spectrum.  Petitioners cannot. The courts cannot hopefully effectuate and vindicate the sound policies of the Industrial Peace Act and all our labor laws if employees. The more the participants. they were not dismissed. in effect imposes on the workers the "duty x x x to observe regular working hours. supra. validly claim that PAL committed an unfair labor practice because. We pronounced therein that:  "Parenthetically. The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees.  In any event.  What they contemplated was evidently a permanent cut-off of employment relationship with their erstwhile employer. PBM Employees Organization (1973) We repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the respondent firm on March 4. denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the employees to engage in such a common action to better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. to 2:00 P. means “any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Samahang Manggagawa v. cannot be considered in the opinion of this Court.B. Court of Industrial Relations.M. N. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground. was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police  abuses.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations As they did not assume the status of strikers.1) of Republic Act No. a strike means only a `temporary stoppage of work'. constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life of the workers and deserves severe condemnation. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted. 2d 921]. 875. 1969. favoritism and discrimination in the appointment and promotion of bank employees. Martinez." Phil. the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. will be permitted to defy and invoke the jurisdiction of the courts whenever the alternative chosen will serve to feather their pure and simple economic demands. was as heretofore stated. having voluntarily terminated their employment relationship with PAL. 413 F. as defined in Article 212 (o) of the Labor Code.  A legitimate concerted activity is a matter that cannot be used to circumvent judicial orders or be tossed around like a plaything. This stand failed to appreciate the sine qua non of an effective demonstration especially by a labor union.. L-35206 which was decided by this Court on April 15. Blooming Mills v. that for the employees to come within the protective mantle of Section 3 in relation to Section 4(a.  Definitely.L. Moreover.” The term “strike” shall comprise not UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 90 of 139 ." as long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance of their interests. Sulpicio Lines (2004) A strike. The respondent firm claims that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the demonstration and that they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6:00 A." Such a concerted action for their mutual help and protection.R. nepotism. deserves at least equal protection as the concerted action of employees in giving publicity to a letter complaint charging a bank president with immorality. according to the respondent CIR. are evident badges of bad faith. for the obvious purpose of satisfying their narrow economic demands to the prejudice of the public interest.  What the mentioned pilots did. "it is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. the Philippine Air Lines. The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that the workers for the morning and regular shifts should not participate in the mass demonstration. contrary to ALPAP [Gaston's] argument that the pilots' retirement/resignation was a legitimate concerted activity.

Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations only concerted work stoppages. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. TYPES. b. the strikers are ordered back to work. On the other hand. sitdowns. Bargaining Deadlock – Economic Consolidated Labor Assoc. a strike may improve the employer-employee relationship by bringing about better working conditions and more efficient services. pending determination of the conflict. if the strikers refuse to return to work. Basic Concepts: 1. On the contrary. including real estate taxes and license fees continue. Blooming Mills case does not involve a right to strike but freedom of speech/expression. it cannot be said that. The employer company is on the defensive. (1984) An economic strike is defined as one which is to forge wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. The capital invested in machinery. Inc. CIR (1950) Ordinarily. of the Phil. a strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. It almost invariably wants the strike stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and continue production. Or. yet his relationship as an employee with his employer is not severed or dissolved. CHANGES AND CONVERSION TYPES a. even disaster.  In cases of unfair labor practice. Can Co. Strike is the workers' means of expressing their grievances to employers and enforcing compliance with their demands made upon them. A welga ng bayan for purpose of lowering oil price is not a valid strike under the Labor Code but it may be upheld as a valid exercise of right of speech. the overhead expenses consisting of salaries of its officials. of the Phil. SSS (1972) Although during a strike the worker renders no work or service and receives no compensation. it not infrequently gives in to the demands of the strikers. 263 Strikes. Mere participation in a strike is not a ground for termination interests so require or when the court cannot promptly decide the case. V. CHANGE IN TYPE Consolidated Labor Assoc.  Wage distortion are not also a valid ground for a strike since the law provides for a procedure to settle wage distortion problems (see Ilaw at Buklod case) 3. The idea behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted. but also slowdowns. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. v. just so it can maintain the continuity of its production. Temporary in Nature  Employee-Employer relationship continues to exist. attempts to damage. especially where public UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 91 of 139 . they intend to cut off or terminate their relationship with their employer. 3. v. and the striking employees would 2.  However. and similar activities. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. 4. 212. V. Hence. much less. mass leaves. The strike was an economic one. In such cases. And when laborers go on strike. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks.  Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company. Marsman and Co. (1984) Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for collective bargaining. cannot be sustained. Any interruption or stoppage of production spells loss. Unfair Labor Practice Art. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. which may constitute union busting. the petitioner's contention that Edilberto Tupas ceased to be an employee from 17 September 1957 to the middle of February 1958 when he was on strike. the employer company seeks permission from the court to employ other laborers to take their places. NATURE AND PURPOSE Phil. the employee may suffer the consequence of abandonment of work  Phil. EFFECT WORK RELATIONSHIP Elizalde Rope Factory. where the existence of the union is threatened. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. Marsman and Co. However. Initiating Party: Employer: Lock-out Union: Strike 2.  Welga ng Bayan (Political Strike) is not a valid strike under the Labor Code since no labor dispute is involved. paralyzed.  Knowing this. Cause: Labor dispute  An inter-union and intra-union dispute cannot be a valid ground for a strike or lock-out since a labor dispute is technically defined under Art. picketing and lockouts. factory and other properties connected with the business would be unproductive during a strike or the stoppage of the business. destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities. the strikers by going on strike seek to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company.

GROUNDS ALLOWABLE STRIKES Art. in the same breath. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. It stopped the strike upon the belief they could go back to work. since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees.  The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice with respect to such time. For it is recognized that during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying places left vacant by the strikers. Violation of Duty to Bargain Collectively. But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. it cannot. manifest that the issues raised the by the petitioner center on whether or not its members. during the pendency of the labor dispute.  The offer to return to work made by the members of the petitioner. constituted a "virtual lockout". the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. picketing and lockouts. a lockout. T  The law does not provide for a virtual lockout.-It shall be unlawful for any employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of his employees. Petitioner principally based its claim for back wages on the theory that there was a lock-out or "virtual lock-out". provides: "SEC. and stated. it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. as none had so far been committed. in the interim. It was then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. therefore.  While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts of violence. still the circumstances of the case would not justify the demand that the strikers are entitled ipso. * * *" It will thus be seen that under the above provision.  This being an unfair labor practice case. did not make the refusal to accept the same. complainants had no right to back pay. by the mere expedient of filing before the trial court a notice of offer to return to work. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 92 of 139 . and is not bound to discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to resume their employment. Petitioner alleges that said refusal to accept them. On the other hand. when it said: "the striking union decided on this question of strike which was carried out and maintained by picketing the respondent's cement plant at Binañgonan. in accordance with the provisions of this Act.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations have a right to be reinstated if. can riot be converted into a pure and simple lockout. During the time that the strike was an economic one. that certain degree of reason and fairness be accorded.  The strike which was open and publicly declared by the petitioner union on May 27.  That there was no lockout is clear from the observations of the respondent court. jure to back wages. 5.  Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination practiced by the Company.  In cases of unfair labor practice. 263 Strikes.  This is so because the case on the legality or not of the strike was then pending decision by the CIR and said Court did not issue any order in connection with said offer.  No finding was made by the CIR on the question of lockout. 1956. even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice. But assuming. The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further negotiations would only come to naught. which prevented them to work. Any employee whose work has stopped as a consequence of such lockout shall be entitled to backpay. NON-CONVERSION – STRIKE TO LOCKOUT Rizal Cement Workers Union v. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. the strikers are not entitled to backpay. the lock-out referred to is that which is committed by the employer. This is so because the respondent court found that the strike was attended by isolated acts of violence committed by the strikers. Rizal". In an economic strike. that the nonacceptance of the unconditional offer to return to work was virtual lockout. CIR (1962) It becomes.  Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants. or to declare a lockout without having first bargained collectively with the representative of its employees. 875). considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. if it refused to give work to its workers. order reinstatement much less back pay for that period. therefore. their minatory attitude towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. The law (Act No.15. are entitled to back wages.  Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. the employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them.

it shall be the duty of the striking union or lockingout employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel. No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or  without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or  without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. through the exercise. 263 (g) When. the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that. the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume. be exhausted to substantially minimize. in his opinion. strikes and lockouts in hospitals. the Department of Labor and Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. not only by labor and management but government as well. the Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the strike.  The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.  PROHIBITED STRIKES Art. if not prevent. in his opinion. are indispensable to the national interest. the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. their adverse effects on such life and health. In case of a lockout. Art. In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health. clinics or medical institutions. The foregoing notwithstanding. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification. by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout. including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages.  In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals. whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted. 264 Prohibited activities. to every extent possible. That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment. for the duration of the strike or lockout. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. under pain of immediate disciplinary action. where the existence of the union is threatened. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 93 of 139 . For this purpose. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. however legitimate.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations  However. even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. and all serious efforts. which may constitute union busting. damages and other affirmative relief. even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. most especially emergency cases. the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders. as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients.  Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission. Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. In an effort to settle a strike. 265 Improved offer balloting. all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-towork and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. Art. When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. clinics and similar medical institutions shall.  In such cases. there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.  Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status:  Provided. therefore. within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout. be avoided.

the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of ULP. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. In the particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order. been committed. once an assumption certification order is issued by the SOLE. Chapter I of these implementing rules. or other concerted activities of the employees or management. under Article 264(a) of the said code. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory. Inc. In this situation. lockouts. 13 Section 16. it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has. illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike /lockout.. As this Court ruled in Union of Filipro Employees v. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. it suffices that the striking workers are shown to have acted honestly on an impression that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and the surrounding circumstances could wan-ant such a belief in good faith. a strike that is undertaken. after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration. consistent with the national interest.  In cases of unfair labor practice. as was the honest belief of herein petitioners. The requisite seven-day period is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. 6. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. NLRC (1991) WAGE DISTORTION cannot be a ground for strike. no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. picketing and lockouts. 6727 prescribes a specific. (b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. STRIKING PARTY Art. strikes. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. Nestle Philippines. Ramos (2000) Another reason why the Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal is due to the existence of a no strike no lockout provision in the CBA.e. all strikers shall immediately return to work: The respondents’ claim of good faith is not a valid excuse to dispense with the procedural steps for a lawful strike. declares that. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v.  However. v. Again. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. Grand Labor Organization (2003) Under Art. i. and not by strikes. to force wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. Again." Section 3 of Republic Act No. " Grand Boulevard Hotel v. detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof. whether or not there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. are enjoined or if one has already taken place. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. in fact. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. NO STRIKE CLAUSE Panay Electric Co. is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment" pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. strikes UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 94 of 139 . such a ruling is erroneous. becomes a prohibited activity and. Strikes.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations  When at least a majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the reduced offer. thereby implicitly excluding. as amended. Moreover. shall continue to be recognized and respected. despite the issuance by the SOLE of an assumption or certification order. no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is economic in nature. no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intraunion disputes. 263. NLRC (1995) It has heretofore been held that a "no strike. lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. A no strike. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or abitration. 263. The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. thus.

i. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. which may constitute union busting. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. which may constitute union busting. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. and j. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: f. However. 264 Prohibited activities. (d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of Labor and Employment may promulgate. If the dispute is not settled.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations labor organization in behalf of its members. Art. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 95 of 139 . where the existence of the union is threatened. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS EFFORT TO BARGAIN Art. it shall be the duty of employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages.  However. In cases of unfair labor practice. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. In cases of unfair labor practice. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. which may constitute union busting. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. (e) During the cooling-off period. where the existence of the union is threatened. h. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. (e) During the cooling-off period. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. OBSERVANCE COOLING-OFF PERIOD Art. where the existence of the union is threatened.  it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book x x x. the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. o 7. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. g. either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request.  However. Art. In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply. Art. FILING OF NOTICE OF INTENTION Art. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent.

These requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. 263. x x x Piñero v. The Ministry may. Moreover.  obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. o the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. Art. the union x x x shall furnish the Ministry (now Department) the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout. Sulpicio Lines. notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. However. In every case. social and compassionate justice dictate that petitioner Piñero be awarded financial assistance equivalent to onehalf (1/2) month’s pay for every year of service computed from his date of employment up to October 28. v.  obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened. a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of unfair labor practice b. knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. 1994 when he was declared to have lost his employment status. he has no previous derogatory records. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. in view of the propriety of his termination as a consequence of the illegal strike. any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike x x x with the Ministry (now Department) at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or  without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or  without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. he is no longer entitled to payment of retirement benefits because he lost his employment status effective as of the date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter – October 28. obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. 1994. (c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. The Court notes that petitioner Piñero turned 60 years old and retired on March 1. 263. Although meriting termination of employment. CONDUCT OF AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY Art. Inc. Pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code. as amended. subject to the cooling-off period herein UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 96 of 139 . the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. rendering his dismissal from service moot and academic. NLRC (2004) There is no doubt that the strike staged by DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU is illegal for non-compliance with the strike-vote requirements. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership. PICKETING AND LOCKOUTS. however. An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally not entitled to any financial assistance. STRIKES. 1996 after 29 years of service. Piñero’s infraction is not so reprehensible nor unscrupulous as to warrant complete disregard of his long years of service. equities of this case should be accorded due weight because labor law determinations are not only secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem Samahang Manggagawa etc. c. In cases of unfair labor practice. x x x. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: a. In every case. The Ministry (now Department) may at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. xxx VOTE. provide an exception.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations  Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. However. 263 (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. (2004) The basic issue for our determination is whether the strike staged by petitioner’s officers and members is illegal. the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout. strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. 264 Prohibited activities. Indeed. Under Art. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. provide: “ART. Equity considerations. Under the circumstances.

we stressed that “the language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations provided. the strike mounted by petitioner union on May 20. which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened.  The purpose of the strike vote is to ensure that the decision to strike broadly rests with the majority of the union members in general and not with a mere UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 97 of 139 . which include the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB: 1) A notice of strike. a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting. There is no showing that the petitioner union observed the 7-day strike ban. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the employer. A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of strike. In National Federation of Labor v. We thus hold that for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 263 (c) and (f) of the Labor Code. the cooling-off period need not be observed. However. However. 2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30) days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in case of unfair labor practice. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. Thereafter. 5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout. nevertheless. the NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the same. if the parties refuse. – A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for the purpose. Following are the Implementing Guidelines of the above provisions issued by the Department of Labor and Employment: 1. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. and 3. Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263. shall call the parties to a conference at the soonest possible time in order to actively assist them in exploring all possibilities for amicable settlement. specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB. However. should be filed with the DOLE. A strike shall be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment at least 15 days if the issues raised are unfair labor practice or at least 30 days if the issue involved bargaining deadlock. Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC which reads: Section 10. … Before a strike is actually 4) commenced. the union or the employer shall furnish the regional branch Although the second paragraph of Section 10 of the said Rule is not provided in the Labor Code of the Philippines. the parties shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. the union may hold a strike vote. In every case. Strike or lockout vote. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date. at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. the same was incorporated in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and has the force and effect of law. A strike vote shall be reported to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days before the intended strike. The decision to declare a strike requires the secretballot approval of majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. 1994 is illegal. paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code. Inc. and that the results of the strike vote were submitted by petitioners to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days before the strike. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB. (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry (now Department). through its conciliator-mediators. a strike may ensue. The regional branch of the Board may. place and time of the meeting of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote. 2. ART. v. NLRC.” of the Board and notice of meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout. vs. x x x. copy furnished the employer of the union. 264. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote. x x x.” Capitol Medical Center. at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. the NCMB. corporation or association or the partners obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose. in the case of union busting where the union’s existence is threatened. if and when it decides to exercise its power of supervision. and if the requisite number of votes is obtained. the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules. NLRC (2005) We agree with the petitioner that the respondent Union failed to comply with the second paragraph of Section 10. with the required contents. In Gold City Integrated Port Service. The strike shall be supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose. subject to the coolingoff period. In the event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation proceedings. Inc. subject to the cooling-off period provided in this Rule. NLRC.

the sevenday period affords the members an opportunity to take the appropriate remedy before it is too late. wherein this Supreme Court held that "the employee. The union is thus mandated to allege and prove compliance with the requirements of the law. Consequently.  Conformably to Article 264 of the Labor Code and Section 7. TEST OF LEGALITY LEGAL STRIKES Purpose and Means Test Luzon Marine Dept Union v. 621).  A strike vote report submitted to the NCMB at least seven days prior to the intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was. and (c) the results of the strikevote must be reported to the DOLE. upon the purpose for which it is maintained. For Employment and Reforms v."  Thus. to supervise the strike vote. Roldan (1950) In the case of Rex Taxicab Company vs. and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon the request of an interested party including the employer. Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation. the legality or illegality of a strike depends.. meaning. Court of Industrial Relations (70 Phil. It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory. In the event that the report is false. and at the same time. CA (2005) Clearly. union bossism and even corruption. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 98 of 139 .Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations minority. place. (b) give the NCMB ample time to decide on whether or not there is a need to supervise the conduct of the strike vote to prevent any acts of violence and/or irregularities attendant thereto. the respondent Union failed to comply with the 24-hour prior notice requirement to the NCMB before it conducted the alleged strike vote meeting on November 10. v. may be declared by the court illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strikevote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike. and time thereof. tenant or laborer is inhibited from striking or walking out of his employment only when so enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relations.  Unless and until the NCMB is notified at least 24 hours of the union’s decision to conduct a strike vote. upon the means employed in carrying it on. Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. members and supporters staged a strike. its officers. 1997. 8. unreasonable or unjust. second.  The 15 to 30 day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator. Caltex Chapter (1953) Needless to say. Inc. in the guise of affording protection to labor. if the purpose which the laborers intend to accomplish by means of a strike is trivial. In this case. or if in carrying on the strike the strikers should commit violence or cause injuries to persons or damage to property o the strike. 2001 is illegal. discourage wildcat strikes. and. The requirement is mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. although not prohibited by injunction. first. Considering that the petitioner union failed to comply with the aforesaid requirements. (b) a strike-vote must be taken. As a result. Caltex Phil. indeed. with the adverse consequences to the strikers. the petitioner complained that no strike vote meeting ever took place and averred that the strike staged by the respondent union was illegal.Solidarity Unions in the Phil. the strike staged on June 11 to 18."  it was also held that "in cases not falling within the prohibition. The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving of notice to the NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will render the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal. non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. because our constitutional government assures the latter against deprivation of their property except in accordance with the statutes or supplementary equitable principles. In order for a strike to be valid. Phil Labor Org. Neither are they authorized. which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. including peace officers if need be. The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike vote to the NCMB at least 24 hours before the meeting for the said purpose is designed to (a) inform the NCMB of the intent of the union to conduct a strike vote. the NCMB cannot determine for itself whether to supervise a strike vote meeting or not and insure its peaceful and regular conduct. taken. Courts are not permitted to render judgments solely upon the basis of sympathies and inclinations. the following requirements laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed. the officers of the union who participated therein are deemed to have lost their employment status. while the seven-day strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union member. no labor organization shall declare a strike unless supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. and the date. to distribute charities at the expense of natural or juridicial persons. to give it ample time to prepare for the deployment of the requisite personnel. the petitioner union.

and notwithstanding the letteradvisories of NCMB warning it of its lack of notice of strike. if violent in character. which may be prevented through an injunction in accordance with Article 254. San Miguel Corp. Moreover. force and intimidation upon the persons of the company officials. consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. other employees reporting for work and third persons having legitimate business with the company. We cannot sanction the respondent-union’s brazen disregard of legal requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. Guidelines and Balancing of Interest Shell Oil Workers Union v. which explicitly oblige the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings. The state’s commitment to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is affirmed by no less than our Constitution. the issue was transformed into a termination dispute and brought respondent company into the picture. respondent company was guilty of unfair labor pratice in that it violated the petitioner’s right to self-organization. applying the aforecited ruling to the case at bar. the intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union.  If a strike is unjustified as when it is declared for trivial. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations Philippine Marine Officers Guild v. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a blatant violation of the Implementing Rules. therefore. however. Such infringement of the aforecited CBA provisions constitutes further justification for the issuance of an injunction against the strike. Respondent however resorted to force without exhausting all available means within its reach. Clearly. A different conclusion would be called for. the Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a strike. Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement of disputes. Care is to be taken.  To overlook these acts of violence would encourage abuses and terrorism and subvert the purpose of the law which provides for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes. NLRC (2003) Pursuant to Article 218 (e). when the NCMB ordered the preventive mediation on May 2. 1994. especially where an unfair labor practice is involved. v. resulting to serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to company property. when committed in carrying on a strike are not to be overlooked in determining its legality or illegality. it bears stressing that Article 264(a) of the Labor Code explicitly states that a declaration of strike without first having filed the required notice is a prohibited activity. One of the procedural requisites that Article 263 of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB. Clearly. Shell Co. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 99 of 139 . As we said long ago: “Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses. the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike. however. of course. the presumption of legality of the strike prevails. responsibility in such a case should be individual and not collective. the coercive measure of injunction may be used to restrain an actual or threatened unlawful strike. maybe placed beyond the pale. Maritima (1968) Acts of violence in this jurisdiction. However. Petitioner herein evinced its willingness to negotiate with the union by seeking for an order from the NLRC to compel observance of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.  Even if the allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to be untrue. of the Phils (1971) A strike otherwise valid. It could be reasonably concluded then that even if justified as to ends. this requirement has been held to be mandatory. when the strike is carried on illegally. if the existence of force while the strike lasts is pervasive and widespread. Petitioners believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by the federation. More so. it becomes illegal because of the means employed'. that is. In the case at bar. respondent had thereupon lost the notices of strike it had filed. no lock-out" clause in the CBA. Trade unionism and strikes are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. To avoid rendering illusory the recognition of the right to strike. Ramos (2000) With regard to the issue of the legality or illegality of the strike. A strike is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. unjust or unreasonable purpose. On the submission that the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-strikeable issue. The strike was staged to protest respondent company’s act of dismissing the union officers. the employer may not be compelled to reinstate the strikers to their employment. the lack of which shall render a strike illegal. petitioner sought a permanent injunction to enjoin the respondent’s strike. Subsequently. public respondent should have granted the injunctive relief to prevent the grave damage brought about by the unlawful strike. to avoid stamping it with illegality just because it is tainted by such acts. it bears reiterating that when respondent company dismissed the union officers. But misuse of these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall grave injury to a business enterprise. and (3) it was attended with violence. to be valid. a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. it still defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was ongoing. Cia. These agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.

they had not been paid. unjustified. PNOC Dockyard v. where the union believed that the employer committed ULP and the circumstances warranted such belief in good faith. subsequently.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations This is not by any means to condone the utilization of force by labor to attain its objectives. It is enough that individual liability be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence that call for loss of employee status. v. in addition. the submission of the results thereof to the National Conciliation and Meditation Board (NCMB). whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. the tension that fills the air as well as the feeling of frustration and bitterness could break out in sporadic acts of violence. An established caveat. a strike based on a "non-strikeable" ground is an illegal strike: corollarily. the circumstances must have warranted such belief. it would be. It is. and (4) the labor unions complied with the legal requirements before going on strike. professional. if the employees believe in good faith that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to strike. Phils. as an unfair labor practice prohibited by Article 248 (e) of the Labor Code. the resulting strike may be considered legal although. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of this case. then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal. Those who seek comfort from the shelter that it affords should be the last to engage in activities which negates the very concept of a legal order as antithetical to force and coercion. therefore. petitioners staged a strike and picketed the company's premises. What is equally important is that in the steps to be taken by it in the pursuit of what it believes to be its rights.F. ATTENDANT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE WORKING FORCE AND MANAGEMENT The basic doctrine underlying the provisions of the Constitution so solicitous of labor as well as the applicable statutory norms is that both the working force and management are necessary components of the economy. call for attendant responsibilities. Inc. REASON FOR PENALTY LESS PUNITIVE THAN DISMISSAL Where a penalty less punitive would suffice. such allegations of unfair labor practices were found to be groundless. The advantages thus conferred. is that a mere claim of good faith would not justify the holding of a strike under the aforesaid exception as. professional. petitioners should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Concern is evident for its welfare. the ban the law imposes on unfair labor practices by management that could provoke a strike and its requirement that it be conducted peaceably. For all this while. In the course of the mass picketing. The ways of the law are not to be ignored. Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a reason to regard the salary discrimination. If there be in this case a weighing of interests in the balance. although rejecting that PNOC and its subsidiaries were guilty of discrimination. (2) the union members honestly believed that they were discriminated against. Goodrich. NLRC (1998) In resolving that the strike was legal. however. B.ULP Interwood Employees Assoc. and technical employees). since MPTs were non-union members. It is even more important that reason and not violence should be its milieu. the advice of those conversant with the requirements of legal norms should be sought and should not be ignored. such as the members' strike vote by secret ballot. (1974) Due to the refusal of the management to consider petitioners' union as the exclusive bargaining representative. however. SECURITY OF TENURE FORTIFIES PROTECTION TO LABOR The conclusion that the dismissal of petitioners in view of their unlawful acts during the strike is uncalled for is fortified by the stress on the security of tenure that is a notable feature of the present Constitution. and technical employees) or NMPTs (non-managerial. As a general rule. illegal and unlawful acts were committed by the petitioners. It is only to show awareness that in labor conflicts. Int’l Hardwood (1956) Generally. the filing of a notice to strike and the observance of the 15-ay cooling-off period. to repeat. a strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no such acts actually exist. since the company practice in the past was to grant salary increases to all employees regardless of whether they were MPTs (managerial. There is. the NLRC reiterated the policy enunciated in several labor cases "that a strike does not automatically carry the stigma of illegality even if no unfair labor UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 100 of 139 . the labor tribunal took note of the following facts: (1) the notice of strike was filed only after the union members lost hope for the redress of their grievance arising from their exclusion from the P2.500 salary increase. not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of ULP when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to sustain such belief. Almira v. (3) such discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice intended to discourage union membership. believed to discourage membership in the labor organization. since private respondent considered them separated from the service. even if no ULP acts are committed by the employer. Thus. As an exception. considering all the facts disclosed. Nor is this to condone what had been done by them. in addition thereto. his family to consider. Such an approach is reflected in our recent decisions. to stamp the strike with illegality. DEFENSES – GOOD FAITH . it is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. therefore. The rights of labor have been expanded. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. Respondent CIR declared petitioners to have committed an illegal strike and dismissed the petitioners.

That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment.  Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status:  Provided.  In cases of unfair labor practice.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations practice were committed by the employer. ILLEGAL STRIKES Basis – Illegality Art. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. the presumption of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is subsequently found to be untrue. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment. the Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. the Department of Labor and Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. justified in terminating UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 101 of 139 .  When at least a majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the reduced offer. where the existence of the union is threatened. 264 Prohibited activities. then. consistent with the national interest. o However. Effect of Illegality Art. which may constitute union busting. shall continue to be recognized and respected. 264 (a) Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. picketing and lockouts. the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. San Juan de Dios (2004) Despite the receipt of an order from then SOLE to return to their respective jobs. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. Art.  However. the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. 265 Improved offer balloting. 263 Strikes. thus. Consequently."  Indeed. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. Hence. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing factor for staging a strike. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status:  Provided. When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. In case of a lockout. Art. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or  without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or  without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. v. San Juan de Dios etc. the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intraunion disputes. The respondent Foundation was. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. the dismissal of its officers is in order.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout. provided that the union and its members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment. In an effort to settle a strike. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.

treats differently mere union members.. those who were discriminatorily dismissed for union activities and those who voluntarily went on strike. justify wrong. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics. Both types of employees are entitled to reinstatement. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for participating in an illegal strike. union officers must be given the required notices for terminating an employment. Employment of Strike Breakers Art. A “runaway shop” is defined as one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes. Stamford Marketing Corp. 246 (c) No employer shall use or employ any strikebreaker. it is said that striking employees are entitled to reinstatement whether or not the strike was the consequence of the employer's unfair labor practice. or defend crime. The Labor Code protects an ordinary. had been dismissed for union activities. which consequently resulted in the loss of employment of not only a few but to all the of the workers. Run-Away Shop Complex Electronics Employees Assoc v. provided that he did not commit an illegal act during the strike. violence. there is no dispute they could be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. This fiction of corporate entity can only be disregarded in certain cases such as when it is used to defeat public convenience. or intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages.  The indiscretion committed by the Union in filing the notice of strike. both of whom. in providing for the consequences of an illegal strike. however. threats. and as a protection to their interest pulled-out of business from Complex who had no recourse but to cease operation to prevent further losses. Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex. as in other termination cases. however. as earlier shown. two types of employees involved in this case must be distinguished.bound to guide their members to respect the law. Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination from employment of a union officer. an ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work.  Well-settled is the rule that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and stockholders. substantial and convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike. unless.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations the employment of the petitioner Union’s officers. a runaway shop. The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. Indeed. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex. To the first class belong Francisco Gaddi and Cresenciano Andrada. Union officers are duty. NLRC (1999) The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is both the president of Complex and Ionics and that both companies have the same set of Board of Directors. and the five salesmen who were virtually locked out by the company when they were ordered to put their trucks in the garage. and notice of termination. With respect to union officers. petitioners did not give the required notices to the union officers.e. which to our mind is not the proper remedy to question the amount of benefits due the complainants who will be retrenched at the closure of the Lite-On Line. coercion. Ionics was already existing as an independent company. Thus. The law. rank-and-file union member who participated in such a strike from losing his job. Art. As very clearly established. 212(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs. To the second class belong those who declared a strike on March 11. The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by the same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate personalities. should their explanation prove unsatisfactory. Julian (2004) Article 264 of the Labor Code. protect fraud. but this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of the corporation. hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of selforganization or collective bargaining. makes a distinction between union officers and members who participated thereon. or interferes with by force. who were alarmed by the pending labor dispute and the imminent strike by the union. Held: The Union's contentions are untenable. absent any clear. where the strike was not due to any unfair labor practice. namely. In this case. A “runaway shop” in this sense. In this case. impedes. following the failure of the company-union conference to settle their dispute. Thus. nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker. Burden of Economic Loss Crownwell Commercial Employees & Laborer’s Union v. Nonetheless. Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members. gave a wrong signal to customers of Complex. however. the employer has hired others to take the place UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 102 of 139 . CIR (1964) At the outset. machinery and materials. 1957. is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. v. notice of hearing to enable them to present their side. the closure was triggered by the customers' pull-out of their equipment. i. It may be worth saying that the right to strike should only be a remedy of last resort and must not be used as a show of force against the employer.

" While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work on March 14. Their offer was predicated on the company's observance of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement-the very bone of contention between the parties by reason of which the union walked out To be effective so as to entitle the strikers to backpay. their minatory attitude towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. On the other hand. however. the decision under review directs the company "to reinstate all the strikers listed in Annex 'A' of the complaint. We find that their offer was conditional. although discriminatorily discharged. must nevertheless be denied reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of violence. "When employees voluntarily go on strike. although on a different ground. since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees. it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. Indeed the offer of the company to accept the strikers under the conditions obtaining before the strike (without prejudice of course to taking up the grievances of the strikers) can be considered in its favor in denying backwages to strikers. even if in protest against unfair labor practices. the strikers are not entitled to backpay. Andrada and the salesmen may be justified. 1957. Discriminatorily dismissed employees receive back pay from the date of the act of discrimination. as in this case. it has been our policy not to award them back pay during the strike. Nor may it be said that the strikers could not have offered to return to work because the company dismissed them upon their failure to return to work on March 14. While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts of violence. as none had so far been committed. unless they have found substantial employment elsewhere during the pendency of this case. We hold that where. the award of backpay to Gaddi. considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. must be excepted those who. its discretion is not unbounded. NLRB.  Accordingly.  However. 1271 the mere fact that strikers or dismissed employees have found such employment elsewhere is not necessarily a bar to their reinstatement. 177. As explained by the NLRB in the case of American Manufacturing Co.   Consolidated Labor Assoc. The same thing may be said of the denial of reinstatement to those who might have found substantial employment elsewhere. as already stated. 313 U. For the notice given by the company was merely a "tactical" threat designed to break the strike and not really to discharge the striking employees. In an economic strike. But that is not the case here. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 103 of 139 . We agree with the union that under the ruling of Phelps Dodge Corp. We are of the opinion that the considerations impelling our refusal to award back pay are no longer controlling. For while the Court of Industrial Relations has indeed discretion in determining the remedy in case of unfair labor practice. complainants had no right to back pay. ed. the rest of the employees struck as a voluntary act of protest against what they considered unfair labor practices of the company. the strikers who refuse to accept the conditions and are consequently refused reinstatement are entitled to be made whole for any losses of pay the suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory acts. 5 NLRB 443. In contrast. 85 L.S. albeit in protest against the company's unfair labor practice. v. This being an unfair labor practice case. the pay from the date of the act of discrimination. even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice. therefore. It can not order the reinstatement of those convicted of violence upon the employer's property." We believe that the denial of backpay may be justified. Hence their economic loss should not be shifted to the employer. The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice with respect to such time. it cannot. were practically locked out when they were ordered to put their trucks in the garage. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants.. From this rule. when the strikers abandon the practices and the employer either refuses to reinstate them or imposes upon their reinstatement new conditions that constitute unfair labor practices. the offer must have been unconditional. in view of the circumstances. The strikers must have offered to return to work under the same conditions under which they worked just before their strike so that the company's refusal would have placed on the latter the blame for their economic loss. the award of backwages. that is from the day of their discharge. that is from the day of their discharge.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations of the strikers and has promised them continued employment. Coming now to the question of backpay. On this score. Marsman & Co. Hence. For this purpose. We shall advert again to the distinction earlier made between discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who struck. without back wages. During the time that the strike was an economic one. The salesmen. On this score. an employer refuses to reinstate strikers except upon their acceptance of new conditions that discriminate against them because of their union membership or activities. order reinstatement much less back pay for that period. It cannot exercise its right beyond the point which the object of "effectuation" of the Act requires. 1957. The stoppage of their work was not the direct consequence of the company's unfair labor practice. (1964) We now come to the question of backpay. vs. as explained on the subject of the strike. they did not voluntarily strike.

(1968) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 104 of 139 . R. Engaged in it are human beings whose feelings are stirred to the depths.03 PICKETING 1. SSS Supervisors’ Union (1982) We find for the petitioner based on the equitable tenet of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor.' Justice and equity demand that each must have to bear its own loss.  When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. before the strike. no pay" applicable to the case at bar. it is but fair that each party must bear his own loss. not in behalf of the 114 remaining strikers. Ltd. L. A strike is essentially a battle waged with economic weapons. however. "Considering. that the petition must be granted insofar as it seeks the setting aside of the award of three months' backwages to the 114 employees ordered reinstated on the basis of the general rule that strikers are not entitled to backwages (with some exceptions not herein applicable. More so. Interfashion v. Employees v." Republic Steel Corp. In case of a lockout.  When at least a majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the reduced offer. Under the circumstances. however much it is to be regretted. the Department of Labor and Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. and therefore the latter could not be deemed to have condoned petitioner's lockout. that is. N. The transformation from economic to physical combat by those engaged in the contest is difficult to prevent even when cool heads direct the fight. Labor Relations and the Law. thus placing the parties in equal footing where none should profit front the other there being no fault of either. the Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. willing and ready to work but "as illegally locked out. 13 of Act 29 USCA Sec. 'the economic loss should not be shifted to the employer. dismissed or suspended. that nothing therein should be construed so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike." "The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee is that of a 'fair day's age for a fair day's labor." Phil. considering that the situation was not a direct consequence of the employer's lockout or unfair labor practice. On the other hand. Violence of this nature. the 114 strikers employees who participated therein are liable for termination. Therefore. B. Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes Art.' If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay. as likewise submitted by the Solicitor General. 107 F2d 472. cited in Mathews. The findings show that both petitioner and the 114 strikers are in pari delicto. a situation which warrants the maintenance of the status quo. such as where the employer is guilty of oppression and union-busting activities and strikers ordered reinstated are denied such reinstatement and therefore are declared entitled to backwages from the date of such denial). Insular Life Assurance Co. 378) Security Bank Employees Union v. must have been in the contemplation of the Congress when it provided in Sec. Rising passions call forth hot words. unless of course the laborer was able. This means that the contending parties must be brought back to their respective positions before the controversy. the SSS. If this were not co. that the parties had no hand or participation in the situation they were in. the 114 employees affected by the lockout are also subject to reinstatement. the order reinstating the 114 employees is proper. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE Insular Life Assurance Co. Security Bank and Trust Co." With such restoration of the status quo ante it necessarily follows. NLRC (1982) The finding of illegal strike was not disputed. Hot words lead to blows on the picket line. Therefore. 163. is the principle of "no work. therefore. contends that the application for readmission to work by the 150 strikers constitutes condonation of the lockout which should likewise bind the 114 remaining strikers. Suffice it to say that the 150 strikers acted for themselves. which was equally faultless. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement 9. the rights afforded to employees by the Act would indeed be illusory. the failure to work on the part of the members of respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to themselves. In an effort to settle a strike. 265 Improved offer balloting.. Petitioner. But neither should the burden of the economic loss suffered by them be shifted to their employer. and that the stoppage of the work was not the direct consequence of the company's lockout or unfair labor practice. We accordingly recently held that it was not intended by the Act that minor disorders of this nature would deprive a striker of the possibility of reinstatement.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations SSS v. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer's time. Ltd. (1971) The heated altercations and occasional blows exchanged on the picket line do not affect or diminish the right to strike. p. Persuasive on this point is the following commentary: "We think it must be conceded that some disorder is unfortunately quite usual in any extensive or long drawn out strike. v. the finding of illegal lockout was likewise not disputed. in view of the undisputed finding of illegality of the strike. Therefore." In this case.

but in the form of a question. The right is. Philnabank Employees (1981) There is a unique aspect to this action for libel against the Philippine National Bank Employees' Association. Certainly. it can not be curtailed even in the absence of employeremployee relationship. This is not to say that picketing. against picketing in any guise or form. If the law fails to afford said protection. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 105 of 139 . we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute. PAFLU V. a 1947 decision this Court has been committed to the view that' peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution. It is to be noted that in the instances cited. we believe that courts are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute. PICKETING AND LIBEL LAWS PCIB V. made explicit its disapproval of an injunction against strikes. and commit acts which lead to breaches of peace. The picket is merely regulated to protect the rights of third parties. the offending imputation. there can be no indiscriminate ban on the freedom to disseminate the facts of a labor dispute and to appeal for public sympathy. The present case squarely fits into the foregoing legal setting. That was the aim and intent as found by the lower court.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations Moreover. and ultimately the final subversion of the law. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution." They are entitled to seek protection of their rights from the courts and the courts may. fortunately lasting only for one day. was included. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to picket. Unfortunately. bloodshed. It was due to a former official of plaintiff appellant's bank who was thereafter named as President of the Philippine National Bank. the recognition of peaceful picketing as a constitutional right embraced in the freedom of expression dating from the 1947 decision of Mortera vs. and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. PAFLU's right to peacefully picket METBANK is not curtailed by the injunctions issued by respondent judge. Gomez. to the extent that it is an instrument of coercion rather than of persuasion. 1947. Meadowmoor Dairies be heeded that labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response. accordingly. picketing through the use of illegal means. men will endeavor to safeguard their rights by their own might. The obstacle that bars respondent Bank from attaining its objective to bar all picketing is indeed too formidable to surmount. From the time of Mortera vs. Lucero. which is the aim of peaceful picketing. sufficient to oust a court of jurisdiction. even on the assumption that it was originally possessed of such a competence. Should there be an automatic attitude of condemnation for such incident? If the realistic observation of Justice Frankfurter in Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago v. Cloribel (1969) The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located. The latest case in point where such a principle was reaffirmed expressly is Associated Labor Union v. And the reason for I his is not farfetched. including those with related interest. 1968. There is no mention of the other placards but it is not unlikely that to bolster its claim. Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. Wellington and Galang are mere "innocent bystanders. in Caltex Refinery Association vs. this Court. no connection was found between the two mills owned by two different corporations other than their being situated in the same premises." That is so in view of the unmistakable language employed in the Industrial Peace Act. not an absolute one.6 If peacefully carried out. without a transgression of the Constitution. Court of Industrial Relations. The statutory command on picketing likewise calls for a similar declaration. Equally so. Manila. Also. should be understood to cover only illegal picketing. which was not so in this case as had been earlier made clear. even without such a categorical mandate expressed in the Act. a 1980 decision. That could not very well be disputed by plaintiffappellant. It was filed by plaintiff PCIB as a result of placards and signboards along the PNB building in Escolta. holding that "no Court can issue a restraining order against union members who plan to hold a strike even if the same may appear to be illegal. has no limits. CIR (1947) The prohibition in the order of February 21. This should not be allowed to happen. 2. Moreover. Peaceful picketing cannot be prohibited. In one case decided by this Court. peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated. take the law in their own hands. containing the following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?" There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike. Although sustained on a different ground. And in one American case. with reference to strikes. legally extend the same. it cannot rightfully be entitled to the protection associated with free speech. like freedom of expression in general. precludes the issuance of such a blanket prohibition as that imposed in the challenged order of respondent Judge of January 3. that is. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech. Mortera v. however. mention was likewise made and in bold letters at that of such alleged failing of its management. CIR.

The interim Batasang Pambansa has spoken on the subject thus: "(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence.' Reference was made in such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. it is now well-settled that peaceful picketing cannot be restrained because the same is part of the freedom of speech But petitioner fails to realize that the questioned July 16. As emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. in deciding suits for libel. Indeed. .. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 106 of 139 . . picketing under any guise and form is hereby prohibited . then the Rules of Court will govern the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because it will not partake the nature of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction to issue. . 1965 order of the Court of Industrial Relations did not refer to peaceful picketing. 3. both in the Philippines as in the United States. the wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is likewise clearly bereft of support in law. petitioner injects a constitutional issue in that the respondent CIR's order of July 16. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Cuizon Hotel v. Section 9 of Republic Act 875. Such being the case." would apply.-Picketing peacefully carried out is not illegal even in the absence of employeremployee relationship. Court of Industrial Relations. In the answer. picketing through the use of illegal means" In this case. . EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP De Leon v. that the peaceful picketing authorized cannot certainly countenance acts of illegality. In Mortera. coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes. PLDT Co. This gate is about 200 meters from the gate leading to the premises of the employer of the appellants. the order of the labor arbiter certainly cannot be declared final and executory upon the mere issuance thereof. RESTRICTIONS. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. the questioned order should also be taken as limited to the lifting of the picket lines which constituted illegal picketing especially so because it expressly stated that the petitioner union and its officers. That is manifestly in contravention of the law. As pointed out in a very recent decision decided this year. of course. that is. ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEREMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT MAKE PICKETING ILLEGAL. supra. the "Industrial Peace Act. The persons manning the picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined from impeding and interfering with implementation of this Order as well as from interfering in any manner with the operations of respondent. this Court once again makes manifest its adherence to the principle first announced by Justice Malcolm as ponente in the leading case of United States v. 5. v." this Court ruled that the "order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing. Gomez. where the therein questioned order partly declared that ". picketing through the use of illegal means. A doctrine analogous in character. there is no affront either to reason or to the law in the complaint for libel being dismissed. a 1947 decision this Court has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution. it made clear that the judiciary. or obstruct public thoroughfares. must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. that is. Moreover. Permanent Concrete Workers Union (1981) The first question that strikes Us to be of determinative significance is whether or not this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. 1918. National Labor Union (1957) PICKETING. . a period of 10 days being granted either or both to the parties involved from receipt of any order to appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission. for peaceful picketing is a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. that in the continuing confrontation between labor and management. and to lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent company's various offices and installations . 1965. Peaceful picketing cannot be prohibited. (1982) However. 1965 violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech because it called for the lifting of peaceful picket lines. CURTAILMENT Free Telephone Workers Union v. it is far from likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. the order of the Court of Industrial Relations must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing. The record before Us reveals that appellant union and its members picketed the gate leading to appellee's bodega. It cannot be too often said that Bustos was promulgated as far back as March 8.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations then the decision reached by the lower court becomes even more acceptable. INNOCENT THIRD PARTY RULE AND LIABILITIES Liwayway Publishing Co. 4. . with respect to the first error assigned. Bustos. Therefore. agents or symphatizers "are hereby directed to call off the strike declared on July 17. It is to be understood. If it does. Article 223 of the Labor Code is quite explicit on the matter. In placing reliance on the constitutional right of freedom of expression.  It is a fact of industrial life. reference was made to the alleged commission of acts of violence against nonstriking employees and even against the eightyyear old "sickly and paralytic President" of respondent. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera v. Libron (1983) The above restraining order had to be issued because as contended in the petition. CFI of Rizal: "It need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. if it does not. then with certainty.  In no uncertain terms. . PAFLU v.

to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract. in order to ascertain what court has jurisdiction to issue the injunction. nor with the company against whom the strikers staged the strike. Although sustained on a different ground. we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute. The instant case falls squarely under the provisions of Article 1664of the New Civil Code which provides as follows:  "Art.  Article 1654 of the New Civil Code cited by the appellants in support of their motion to dismiss. and neither are the acts of the driver of the appellee. therefore. and the striking Union. it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. the SC said: "The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.  In such a factual situation. it is necessary to determine the nature of the controversy. and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. vs." their own hands. and therefore."  We find and hold that there is no connection between the appellee Liwayway Publications. the query to be resolved is whether the appellee is a third party or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been invaded and. Moreover. men will endeavor to safeguard their rights by their own might. but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. is likewise without merit. Thus. 854. it is that both are situated in the same premises. If peacefully carried out. is not in point. including those with related interest. the appellee publishing company should have brought its complaint against the first sublessee. that "with regard to activities that may be enjoined. and not against the appellant Union. which can hardly be considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending in the Court of Industrial Relations between the strikers and their employer." The same case state clearly and succinctly the rationalization for the court's regulation of the right to picket in the following wise and manner: "Wellington and Galang are mere 'innocent bystanders'. its general manager. personnel manager. entitled to protection by the regular courts. There is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatever. the man incharge of the bodega and other employees of the appellee in reaching the bodega to obtain newsprint therefrom to feed and supply its publishing business interwoven with the labor dispute between the striking Union and the Permanent Concrete Products company. accordingly. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 107 of 139 . the lessor shall not be obliged to answer for the mere fact of a trespass (perturbacion de mero hecho) made by a third person in the use of the estate leased but the lessee shall have a direct action against the trespasser. Cloribel. The contention of appellants that the court erred in denying their motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. it is well to cite and stress the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the right to picket. At this juncture. et al. Don Ramon Roces. The lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased. peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations Appellee is not in any way related to the striking union except for the fact that it is the sublessee of a bodega in the company's compound. PAFLU's right to peacefully picket METBANK is not curtailed by the injunctions issued by respondent judge. which obliges the lessor. The acts complained of against the striking union members are properly called mere acts of trespass (perturbacion de mero hecho) such that following the doctrine laid down in Goldstein vs. And the reason for this is not farfetched. The right is. however. 1664. Roces. This should not be allowed to happen. the union members intimidating and threatening with bodily harm the employees of the appellee who were in the truck. Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). It is to be noted that in the instances cited. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech. If the law fails to afford said protection. The picketers belonging to the appellant union had stopped and prohibited the truck of the appellee from entering the compound to load newsprint from its bodega. a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located. Tan. among others. legally extend the same. no connection was found other than their being situated in the same premises. 34 Phil. Inc. not an absolute one. 562. And in one American case. Thus. we believe that courts are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute. They are entitled to seek protection of their rights from the courts and the courts may. take the law in We cannot agree that the above rules cited by the appellants are controlling in the instant case for as We said in Phil. 99 Phil. The picket is merely regulated to protect the rights of third parties. In one case decided by this Court. If there is a connection between appellee publishing company and the Permanent Concrete Products company. and commit acts which lead to breaches of the law. the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or 'innocent bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. in the case of PAFLU vs.

justify wrong. v. and the post transaction" between Philtread. we cannot ignore. as vendor. therefore. any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 108 of 139 . or where the corporation is used as a mere alter-ego or business conduit. it is not these standards but those of the "innocent bystander" rule which govern whether or not petitioner is entitled to an injunctive writ. That nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and order. petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection to the dispute. 264 (b) No person shall obstruct.  Although. its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof." who seeks to enjoin a labor strike. defend crime. as vendee.  shall bring in. As correctly observed by the appellate court:  Coming now to the case before us. .  any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area. threats or intimidation.04 ROLE OF PEACE OFFICERS DURING STRIKES AND PICKETING 1. or interfere with. Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent and 60% owner of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre. impede. 266 Requirement for arrest and detention. or work in place of the strikers. we find that the "negotiation. the transaction between Philtread and Siam Tyre. PROHIBITED PICKETING ACTIVITIESPEACEFUL bargaining. and manufacture the same products as Philtread. was not a simple sale whereby Philtread ceased to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. or armed person. 264 (d) No public official or employee. Art. same machinery. Stated differently.  no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor. violence. as petitioner contends. by force. protect fraud. given its close links with Philtread. we have not touched on the issue of . ARREST AND VIOLATORS DETENTION OF LAW Art. it is entirely different from. Stated differently. CA (1999) Thus. given its close links with Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ. The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein:  Provided. 6. together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or factory. Except on grounds of national security and public peace or in case of commission of a crime. or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference. including officers and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated National Police. similar or substantially the same working conditions. must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. and Siam Tyre. This. and/or enforce the law and legal order. introduce or escort in any manner. tools. lead us to safely conclude that private respondent's personality is so closely linked to Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ. and equipment. either party to the dispute and. We stress that that in so ruling. contract of sale. To be sure. . 9. 2. ESCORTING Art. an "innocent bystander. On the contrary. coercion. without any connection whatsoever to. reveals a legal relation between them which. protect life and property. in the interest of petitioner. and which now owns the land were subject plant is located. whether or not private respondent is a mere dummy or continuation of Philtread. we find no clear and unmistakable right on the part of private respondent to entitle it to the writ of preliminary injunction it prayed for below.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations MSF Tire and Rubber Inc. the corporate fiction may be disregarded where it is used to defeat public convenience. In the case at bar.

 BUT excluding labor disputes involving strikes or lockout. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation. or arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. b) if not restrained or performed forthwith. it is an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT that: there must first be a LABOR DISPUTE between the contending parties before the labor arbiter. To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which. Article 218 of the Labor Code empowers the NLRC: e." The term "LABOR DISPUTE" is defined as "any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. adequate and complete remedy at law. The essential conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are: 1) that the complaint alleges facts which appear to be sufficient to constitute a proper basis for injunction and 2) that on the entire showing from the contending parties. Furthermore. and not a mere theoretical question or issue.  Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from employment shall be  Complementing the above-quoted provision. or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. a justiciable dispute. The foregoing ancillary power exercised by the Labor Arbiters: may be UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 109 of 139 . which. an adjunct to a main suit. (Webster) Philippine Airlines. it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. The application of the injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason before the main case be regularly heard. a) involving or arising from any labor dispute before the Commission. a civil action or suit. the power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute" upon application by a party thereof. 1. pertinently provides as follows: Section 1. the alleged injury which private respondents stand to suffer by reason of their alleged illegal dismissal can be adequately compensated and therefore. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy. as amended. v. adversary proceeding in a court of law. From the foregoing provisions of law. there exists no "irreparable injury.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations Part X : LABOR INJUNCTION 10. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party ONLY as an INCIDENT to the cases pending before them in order to preserve the rights of the parties during the pendency of the case. or to provide relief from harm for which an award of money damages is not a satisfactory solution or for which a monetary value is impossible to calculate." Taking into account the foregoing definitions. when it is established on the bases of the sworn allegations in the petition that the acts complained of. there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and private respondents as there has yet been no complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the labor arbiter by the private respondents against the petitioner. injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive rights or interest. if not restrained or performed forthwith." The term "CONTROVERSY” is likewise defined as "a litigated question." A "justiciable controversy" is "one involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real.A preliminary injunction or a restraining order may be granted by the Commission through its divisions pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (e) of Article 218 of the Labor Code." as defined above which would necessitate the issuance of the injunction sought for. the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. Why does injunction not apply to the facts of this case? In the present case. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action rather than to compensate for an injury that has already been occurred. changing. NLRC (1998) GENERALLY. Injunction in Ordinary Labor Dispute. which application if not granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. maintaining. Rule XI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. A defendant who violates an injunction is subject to penalty for contempt. . Sec. It is considered irreparable injury when it cannot be adequately compensated in damages due to the nature of the injury itself or the nature of the right or property injured or when there exists no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of damages. In the case at bar.01 DEFINITION AND NATURE INJUNCTION: An injunction is available as a remedy for harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. that is. an examination of private respondents' petition for injunction reveals that it has no basis since there is no showing of any urgency or irreparable injury which the private respondents might suffer. fixing. Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is no plain. either at law or in equity. Inc. When is an injury considered irreparable? An injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair and reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law.

That no temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses. and testimony in opposition thereto. sufficient. after due consultations or hearing and when all efforts at conciliation are exhausted which factors. continued unless restrained but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat. to the effect: (1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 110 of 139 . in such manner as the Commission shall direct. prohibited or unlawful act.  Thus. 2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow. 218 Powers of the Commission. and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant's property: Provided. association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof. mediation and arbitration." b) there is "TESTIMONY under OATH. in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath. if sustained. Art. injunctions may be issued only in cases of extreme necessity based on legal grounds clearly established. fixing. and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. and" 3) 10. unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice. — The Commission shall have the power and authority: (e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute  which.02 GENERAL RULE –PROHIBITION Art. are clearly absent in the present case. That as to each item of relief to be granted." d) No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except ART. POLICY BEHIND PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION: It has been the policy of the State to encourage the parties to use the non-judicial process of negotiation and compromise. if offered.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations entitled to reinstatement. "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served." c) the "temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days. 212 (l) ‘LABOR DISPUTE’ includes any controversy or matters:  concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or  representation of persons in negotiating. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. and to the payment of full backwages. greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief.  regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. a) the complainant "shall also allege that. inclusive of allowances. That complainant has no adequate remedy at law. if not restrained or performed forthwith. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party:  Provided. except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this code. to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. however. and only after a finding of fact by the commission. to all known persons against whom relief is sought. however. a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable. 254 No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity. with opportunity for cross-examination. 4) (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. maintaining. without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. except against the person or persons.

To deny the victim of the wrongful levy.  The private respondents are not parties to the said NLRC case. To say that it was an order would be to concede that respondent court could validly enjoin a strike. GENERAL RULE: there can be no injunction issued against any strike. the recourse such as that availed of by the herein private respondents. 10 of Republic Act No. and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission. No. 2749 is whether the NLRC's decision and writ of execution. further. will be sanctioning a greater evil than that sought to be avoided by the Labor Code provision in UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 111 of 139 ." Petitioners' reliance on the provision of Art. the purpose of such an injunction is not to enjoin the strike itself. 10 of Republic Act No. especially one which is not certified in accordance with Sec. 2) The prohibition to issue labor injunctions is designed to give labor a comparable bargaining power with capital and must be liberally construed to that end. It does not seek to enjoin the execution of the decision against the properties of the judgment debtor. 2749 does not put in issue either the fact or validity of the proceeding in the NLRC case nor the decision therein rendered. That the reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall submit thereafter his recommendation to the Commission. including all reasonable costs. unhampered as far as possible by judicial or administrative intervention. But nothing herein contained shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided. On this premise the lawmaking body has virtually prohibited the issuance of injunctive relief involving or growing out of labor disputes. of which hearing complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice. Civil Case. Civil Case No. that is. Philippine Iron Mines. Such a recourse is allowed under the provisions of Section 17. above-mentioned. shall be permitted to be satisfied against properties of private respondents. Vera (1984) An injunction is a proper remedy to prevent a sheriff from selling the property of one person for the purpose of paying the debts of another. under the pretext that no court of general jurisdiction can interfere with the writ of execution issued in a labor dispute. when a labor dispute arises in an INDUSTRY INDISPENSABLE TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST and such dispute is CERTIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT of the Philippines to the Court of Industrial Relations in compliance with Sec. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 875. 9(d) of Republic Act No. 2749 is one which neither "involves" nor "grows out" of a labor dispute. In this case Judge Tabigne cautioned the parties to “maintain the status quo”. 875. much less the writ of execution issued thereunder. 254 of the New Labor Code which prohibits injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a 'labor dispute' is not well-taken. he specifically advised the employees NOT TO GO ON strike. 875 for achieving industrial peace rests essentially on a FREE AND PRIVATE AGREEMENT between the employer and his employees as to the terms and conditions under which the employer is to give work and the employees are to furnish labor. National Mines and Allied Workers v. the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assoc. expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction. but only unlawful activities. To adopt the view of respondent court would not only set at naught the policy of the law as embodied in the said statute against issuance of injunctions. According to SC what Judge Tabigne stated during said hearing should be construed what actually it was — an advice. but also remove from the hands of labor unions and aggrieved employees an effective lawful weapon to either secure favorable action on their economic demands or to stop unfair labor practices on the part of their employer. To sustain petitioners' theory will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences and lend judicial imprimatur to deprivation of property without due process of law. What 'involves' or 'grow out' of a labor dispute is the NLRC case between petitioners and the judgment debtor. CIR (72) RATIONALE for prohibition: 1) It is well known that the scheme in Republic Act No. together with a reasonable attorney's fee. Simply because a writ of execution was issued by the NLRC does not authorize the sheriff implementing the same to levy on anybody's property." The UNDERTAKING herein mentioned shall be understood to constitute an agreement into by the complainant and the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety upon a hearing to assess damages. Purpose of an injunction in an UNCERTIFIED case: As a corollary to this.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations on condition that "complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss. Will disobedience to the judge’s advice constitute contempt of court? No. and not of the judgment debtor named in the NLRC decision and writ of execution. 875. an injunction in an uncertified case must be based on the strict requirements of Sec.  This has no application to the case at bar. What is sought to be tried in Civil Case No. v. EXCEPT in only one instance.

During that time. The Labor Arbiter found that Petitioner was not illegally dismissed. 218 (e) Above ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER ( Book V Rule XXI sec. even assuming the contrary. GENERAL RULE: Article 254 of the Code provides that: "No temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations question. Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. paragraph (e) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Further. damages and attorney’s fees. . It is not a cause of action in itself but a mere provisional remedy.  The case before the NLRC neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute.03 EXCEPTIONS – WHEN INJUCTION ALLOWED See Arts. The indispensable conditions for granting such temporary injunctive relief are: (a) that the complaint alleges facts which appear to be satisfactory to establish a proper basis for injunction. 254. . 218(e). For wellsettled is the rule that the power of a court to execute its judgment extends only over properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction. he was granted a vacation leave. Article 254 of the Labor Code specifically provides that the NLRC may grant injunctive relief under Article 218 thereof. Eastern Marine Ltd (2005) Facts: Petitioner is a seafarer who was hired on a contractual basis. and (b) that on the entire showing from the contending parties. respondents had already posted a surety bond more than adequate to cover the judgment award. an injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of a person’s substantive rights or interests. Moreover.:  if not restrained or performed forthwith. the restraining order had been improperly issued. . the respondents contend that the issue has become academic since the CA had already decided the case on its merits. It is more appropriate in the promotion of the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations. Pressing necessity requires that it should be resorted to only to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any measure of consideration. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party . NLRC reversed.04 ISSUING AGENCY 1. Article 218 inter alia enumerates the powers of the National Labor Relations Commission and lays down the conditions under which a restraining order or preliminary injunction may issue. . Ravago v. On appeal." 10. Besides. and the procedure to be followed in issuing the same. he was hit by a stray bullet on his left leg which caused permanent injury. 13)— …The reception of evidence for the application of the writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any Labor Arbiter who shall submit his recommendations to the UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 112 of 139 . It bears stressing that in the present case. It did not involve the fixing of terms or conditions of employment or representation of persons with respect thereto. Among the powers expressly conferred on the Commission by Article 218 is the power to "enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which. the respondents’ petition contains facts sufficient to warrant the issuance of an injunction under Article 218. the anti-injunction policy of the Labor Code. to derail the enforcement of the final and executory judgment of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC. The law proscribes the issuance of injunctive relief only in those cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. an appendage to the main suit. On the other hand. including voluntary arbitration. the petitioner’s complaint revolves around the issue of his alleged dismissal from service and his claim for backwages. the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. Certainly. as modes of settling labor and industrial disputes. The application of an injunctive writ rests upon the presence of an exigency or of an exceptional reason before the main case can be regularly heard. except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 . NLRC (1991) HELD: Also untenable is the Union's other argument that the respondent NLRC Division had no jurisdiction to issue the temporary restraining order or otherwise grant the preliminary injunction prayed for by SMC and that. mediation and conciliation. The Court finds that the respondent Commission had acted entirely in accord with applicable provisions of the Labor Code. . basically. EXCEPTIONS: Article 264 lists down specific "prohibited activities" which may be forbidden or stopped by a restraining order or injunction. is freedom at the workplace. 264 Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER See Art. Held: The petitioner’s reliance on Article 25 [of the Labor Code is misplaced.  In fact. 10. that could not have been the intendment of the law creating the NLRC. Shortly after the termination of his latest contract. Generally. Eastern Marine refused to re-hire him. CA issued a preliminary injunction. The petitioner asserts that the CA violated Article 254 of the Labor Code when it issued a temporary restraining order.

to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. Nestle Phils." as well as "testimony in opposition thereto. or. not in the NLRC. can only be exercised in a LABOR DISPUTE. in the alternative. 4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law. It involves debtor-creditor relations. if not restrained or performed forthwith. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the writ of injunction to stop the company from enforcing the civil obligation of the private respondents under the car loan agreements and from protecting its interest in the cars which. EXCEPTION: When it can issue ex parte. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: . However." c. the return of the cars to the company. "a finding of fact by the Commission. dispute. as the statute provides.  a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable. a HEARING held "after due and PERSONAL NOTICE thereof has been served. and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 113 of 139 ." Nestlés demand for payment of the private respondents' amortizations on their car loans. and 5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant's property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. NLRC (1991) GENERAL RULE: Cannot issue EX PARTE As a rule such restraining orders or injunctions do not issue ex parte.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations Commissions for its consideration and resolution. . greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be indicted upon defendants by the granting of relief. and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant's property b. is not a labor. to all known persons against whom relief is sought. belong to it (the company) until their purchase price shall have been fully paid by the employee. which provides:  The Commission shall have the power and authority: (e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which. . rather than employee-employer relations. As noted. association or making the organization threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof. There is no labor aspect involved in the enforcement of those obligations. 2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant's property will follow. there is "TESTIMONY under OATH. maintaining. Inc. in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath. . but a civil.. by the terms of those agreements. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. V." b. . fixing. but only after compliance with the following requisites. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. with opportunity for crossexamination. sufficient. 3) That as to each item of relief to be granted. together with a reasonable attorney's fee. to the effect: 1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained. reception at the hearing of "testimony of witnesses.  except against the person or persons. prohibited or unlawful act. Paragraph (1) of Article 212 of the Labor Code defines a labor dispute as follows: "(1) ‘LABOR DISPUTE’ includes any controversy or matters: . unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice. The terms of the car loan agreements are not in issue in the labor case.regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. The rights and obligations of the parties under those contracts may be enforced by a separate civil action in the regular courts. expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction. if sustained. the options given to the private respondents are civil in nature arising from contractual obligations. a temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte under the following conditions: a. including all reasonable costs." c." MAIN POINT OF THE CASE: That power. NLRC (1991) The power of the NLRC to issue writs of injunction is found in Article 218 of the Labor Code. the complainant "shall also allege that. . in such manner as the Commission shall direct. to wit: a. if offered .  but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat. the "complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss.

" This constitutional imprimatur given to the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor. guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. In the wise words of Father Bernas. In any event.. the Office of the Solicitor General concurs. Its struggle to gain the right to strike has not been easy and effortless. an intentional replication of RA 875. on the same day April 13. and that it faithfully observed the procedure and complied with the conditions for the exercise of that power prescribed in said sub-paragraph (e). 218(e) of the Labor Code. NLRC (1993) Strike has been considered the most effective weapon of labor in protecting the rights of employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the questioned Order of preliminary injunction. on notice. it must be said. and peaceful concerted activities. Hence. the latter's submittal. the records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e). asserting that the "failure of the respondent commission to resolve the application for a writ of injunction is an abuse of discretion especially in the light of the fact that the restraining order it earlier issued had already expired" — must perforce be conceded. first direct SMC Labor Arbiter Carmen Talusan to receive SMC's testimonial evidence in support of the application and thereafter submit her recommendation thereon. Its address as alleged by the private respondent turned out to be "erroneous". on June 17. 1953. a "legal duty and obligation" on the part of the respondent Commission "to enjoin the unlawful and prohibited acts and omissions of petitioner IBM and the workers complained of" 20 — a proposition with which." and d. In the case at bar. . should be reduced to the barest minimum". (4) and (5) of the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5. the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against striking employees. the public respondent. Again. 1992. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS Bisig ng Manggagawa. a copy of the Order was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner. (d) Knowledge of the Order came to the petitioner  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 114 of 139 . For the first time in our constitutional history. it found SMC's evidence adequate and issued the temporary restraining order upon bond. (b) Consequently.. it. v. in its counter-petition that there was. 2. In the Philippine milieu where social justice remains more as a rhetoric than a reality. the fundamental law of our land (1987 Constitution) mandated the State to ". the constitutional recognition of the right to strike does serve as a reminder that injunctions. the temporary restraining order had a lifetime of only twenty (20) days and became void ipso facto at the expiration of that period. 1989. No irregularity may thus be imputed to the respondent Commission in the issuance of that order. In light of the genesis of the right to strike. 000249-92 filed on April 8. collective bargaining and negotiations. it ought to be obvious that the right should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of labor.J. (a) Petitioner union did not receive any copy of private respondent's petition for injunction in Case No. Congress gave statutory recognition to the right to strike when it enacted RA 875. however. the petitioner was denied the right to attend the hearing held on April 13. In view of the foregoing factual and legal considerations." Moreover. S.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations subsequently denied by the Commission. the factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no concurrence of the five (5) prerequisites mandated by Art. Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional status to the right to strike RA 6715 came into being on March 21. 1992. 1992. etc." The record reveals that the Commission exercised the power directly and plainly granted to it by sub-paragraph (e) Article 217 in relation to Article 254 of the Code."  The reception of evidence "for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall submit thereafter his recommendation to the Commission. It acted on SMC's application for immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order ex parte on the ground that substantial and irreparable injury to its property would transpire before the matter could be heard. all irresistibly leading to the basic conclusion that the concerted acts of the members of petitioner Union in question are violative of the law and their formal agreement with the employer. in the premises. labor has vigilantly fought to safeguard the sanctity of the right to strike. It may be that in highly developed countries. (c) On the basis of uncontested evidence. 1992 while the private respondent enjoyed a field day presenting its evidence ex parte. the "temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days. Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with before a temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute  "Verily. the significance of strike as a coercive weapon has shrunk in view of the preference for more peaceful modes of settling labor disputes. otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. including the right to strike in accordance with law. temporarily enjoined the petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts.

1992. if to do so would result in manifest injustice. 38 Phil. its prayer for an ex parte temporary restraining order was heard on April 13. the Office of the President. Damage is considered "irreparable": a) if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law (Allendorf vs. yet. The disparate treatment is inexplicable considering that the subject matters of their petition are of similar importance to the parties and to the public. 1992 and it was granted on the same day. the deleterious effects of a wrongfully issued. Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: Sec 5. Abalanson. the Commission. its petition for injunction was filed on April 24. Injunctions. when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is. They announced their candidates and actively campaigned for them. and was granted on May 5..  Often times. Rule XVI. the records do not reveal whether the public respondent has granted or denied the same. When that happens. How can petitioners obey the orders of the PCIBEU-Comelec and at the same time reject its authority? This should have put the Med-Arbiter on guard. 3.e. 585). the exercise thereof shall always be subject to the test of reasonableness. While it is true that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to issue a writ of preliminary injunction. 5. should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of EXTREME NECESSITY. This equalizing stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents. turn a blind eye to the arbitrary and haphazard manner by which the Med-Arbiter issued the subject temporary restraining order. Laguesma (1997) In the performance of his duties.  However. A more becoming sense of fairness. even though this issue was not explicitly raised by private respondents. On the other hand. the Labor Arbiter or med-arbiter may enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending before any of said offices or officials which if not restrained forthwith may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic stability. — No temporary injunctions or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute shall be issued by any court or other entity. one may issue only in instances where the complainant or applicant will suffer grave or irreparable damages as provided in Sec. For instance. The Med-Arbiter should ascertain that the act complained of. experience shows that ex parte applications for restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed truths. petitioners even stated that they filed their certificates of candidacy in compliance with the directives of the PCIBEUComelec. and correctly did not. the first petition for injunction and temporary restraining order filed by petitioners on 29 January 1992 was manifestly insufficient to show grave or irreparable injury and it puzzles us to no end how the Med-Arbiter could have issued the temporary restraining order on such flimsy basis. if not restrained forthwith. they unhesitatingly participated in the preelection process. bereft of an adequate remedy at law. the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its petition for preliminary injunction was filed on April 30. Thus. INJUNCTION AND MED-ARBITER Dinio v. it behooves hearing officers receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. 1992. our constitutional policy of protecting labor becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. therefore. the Secretary of Labor. however. In the instant controversy. The petition invoked Article 264 (d) of the Labor Code to enjoin the private respondent from using the military and police authorities to escort scabs at the struck establishment. Stated otherwise. the public respondent should not be shackled by stringent rules. Its issuance." In the case of labor injunctions or temporary restraining orders. i. they unduly tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital. In the case of the private respondent. Nor do we find baseless the allegation by petitioner that the public respondents have neglected to resolve with reasonable dispatch its own Petition for Injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order dated April 25. To be sure. 1992. lest. In the case of petitioner. There is no question that the issuance of a temporary restraining order is addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-Arbiter. or a temporary restraining order against any act arising from any case pending before him. Sadly contrasting is the haste with which public respondents heard and acted on a similar petition for injunction filed by the private respondent. 1992. The immediate need to hear and resolve these ex parte applications does not provide any excuse to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of indiscriminate injunctions. Moreover. for the moment. or b) where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 115 of 139 . may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations only when its striking members read it after it was posted at the struck areas of the private respondent. This is as it ought to be. he cannot. ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. "this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. and to date. for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike. demands that such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by hearing officers. In the petition for injunction itself. petitioners alleged that the PCIBEU-Comelec was illegally constituted.

Art. ALLEGATIONS FOR ART.But TRO is different because it is valid only for 20 days. "(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow. and only after a finding of fact by the commission. with opportunity for crossexamination. and testimony in opposition thereto. so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction. The right must be clear. It is important to take note of the BOND filed and what other remedies there are just in case the injunction or TRO is wrongfully issued. if offered. L-13555. that is. it is not susceptible of mathematical computation (SSC vs. B. D.The exceptions are in Art. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: PROCEDURE for issuance of injunction (also the same for allegations under Art. 3. prohibited or unlawful act. ART. — The Commission shall have the power and authority: I. the damage that would result would substantially be more. deliberation. DISINI: 1. On the contrary.The similarity is in the testimony given. an administrative remedy available and convenient to the parties in the case. 218 and Art. 264. . considering that the petition for issuance of a writ of injunction was filed barely two days before the date set for the conduct of the election. 2. association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof. should the election be postponed to another indefinite time. BUT the procedure to follow is the same. the act complained of in the present case such as the conduct of the election as originally set on 31 January 1992 may not be said to cause "grave or irreparable" damage to the petitioner-appellee considering that any complaint or question on the conduct of the election maybe the subject of protest. to the effect: II. Measured against such test.. 254 . the allegations of the acts committed are different from the allegations of acts committed under Art. 264 . 264) -Provided. Procedure for issuance of TRO is different from procedure of issuance of Injunction. where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. when the election materials were already readied and the other mechanics for election had already been threshed out. Labor Injunction is not the same as the injunction under the rules of court.If you are filing injunction under Art." and as a general reminder: There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution. . "(4) That complainant adequate remedy and" (5) has no at law. Bayona. General rule is stated in Art. It is well to remember that "injunctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor relations policy. to say the least. and sound discretion. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 116 of 139 . 4. C. if not restrained or performed forthwith. "(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted. in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath. (1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat. -which. et al. 218. 218. it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury. greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief. 1962). That no temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued A. or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction. 218 TO APPLY (e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. except against the person or persons. the injury impending or threatened. May 30. except after hearing the testimony of witnesses.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations reasonable accuracy. 218 Powers of the Commission.

other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect complainant's property: of shall have reasonable notice. A. The UNDERTAKING WITH ADEQUATE SECURITY (bond) The UNDERTAKING herein mentioned shall be understood to constitute an agreement into by the complainant and the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety upon a hearing to assess damages.to all known persons against whom relief is sought. the complainant "shall also allege that.a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable.and also to the Chief Executive and . if sustained. to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. together with a reasonable attorney's fee. V. VI." the "temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days. however. and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission. sufficient. III. including all reasonable costs. that the (1) reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall (2) submit thereafter his recommendation to the Commission. the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. further. unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations E.  a) PROCEDURE for issuance Temporary Restraining Order Provided." b) there is "TESTIMONY under OATH." c) d) IV. of which hearing complainant and surety UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 117 of 139 . expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction."complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss. . in such manner as the Commission shall direct. . Other Remedies But nothing herein contained shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity: Role of the Labor Arbiter Provided. PERSONAL NOTICE To whom : "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served." No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that . .

Art. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. in the event that they declare their intention to refer their differences to arbitration first before taking court action. fails or refuses to arbitrate. thus: ". 233 Privileged communication. (e)To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes. exercising their basic freedom to "establish such stipulations. 1008. Declaration of Policy. absent an agreement of the parties to resolve their disputes via a particular mode. Whatever be the case. the early cases on arbitration carefully spelled out the prevailing doctrine at the time. including conciliation. . d. ARBITRATION 11. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace." In such a case. 211. If the dispute is not settled. which agreement would be void. Going a step further. . Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. Title XIV. NCMB.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Part XI : ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF ECONOMIC FORCE: CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AS MODES OF LABOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 1. The rule now is that unless the agreement is such as absolutely to close the doors of the courts against the parties.. XIII. resort to the arbitration process may be spelled out by them in a contract in anticipation of disputes that may arise between them. However. 11. c. 2. provided they are not contrary to law. the courts will look with favor upon such amicable arrangements and will only with great reluctance interfere to anticipate or nullify the action of the arbitrator. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. and e. Or this may be stipulated in a submission agreement when they are actually confronted by a dispute. public order or public policy." In recognition of the pressing need for an arbitral machinery for the early and expeditious settlement of disputes in the construction industry. the stipulation to refer all future disputes to an arbitrator or to submit an ongoing dispute to one is valid.” That there was a growing need for a law regulating arbitration in general was acknowledged when Republic Act No. terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. a Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) was created by Executive Order No. Being part of a contract between the parties. enacted on February 4. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings.02 CONCILIATION – AS PART OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS Art. was passed. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. good customs. such that where a suit has been 11. CONCILIATION 11. it is binding and enforceable in court in case one of them neglects. the parties may opt for recourse to third parties. 3 x x x The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes. such recourse to an extrajudicial means of settlement is not intended to completely deprive the courts of jurisdiction. CA (1992) As early as the 1920's. 1985. Book IV of the Civil Code shall remain in force.03 CONCILIATION AGENCY – NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD Read: CONCILIATORS HANDBOOK. Art." But certainly.04 IN GENERAL Chung Fu Industries v. In practice nowadays. morals. it is the regular courts that remain to resolve such matters. this Court declared: "In the Philippines fortunately. "Said Act was obviously adopted to supplement-not to supplant-the New Civil Code on arbitration. the attitude of the courts toward arbitration agreements is slowly crystallizing into definite and workable form .. clauses. In fact. 876 (1953). a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitrators and to them alone is contrary to public policy and cannot oust the courts of jurisdiction.01 POLICY Art. otherwise known as the Arbitration Law. 1987 Constitution. DOLE UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 118 of 139 . The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. this constitutes a condition precedent. Sec. It expressly declares that' the provisions of chapters one and two.

If courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the factual milieu of an arbitrator's award to determine whether it is in accordance with law or within the scope of his authority? How may the power of judicial review be invoked? This is where the proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 the Revised Rules of Court. Where the parties agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable as in the instant case.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations instituted prematurely. Held: Sec 1 of Article II of the old Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration indeed required the submission of a request for arbitration. that this action will lie only where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the voluntary arbitrator is clearly shown. however. According to petitioner. courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. thus:  "Any stipulation that the arbitrator's award or decision shall be final is valid. unappealable and executory. there is no more need to file a request with the CIAC in order to vest it UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 119 of 139 . modifying or rescinding an arbitrator's award.  For "the writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and that certiorari jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. It stands to reason.  In any event. under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law. voluntary arbitration awards or decisions on money claims. the arbitrators' award may be annulled or rescinded. the Construction Industry Arbitration Law provides that the arbitral award "shall be final and inappealable except on questions of law which shall be appealable to the Supreme Court. Under present law. It is stated explicitly under Art. conciliation and negotiation -. may be appealed to the NLRC on any of the following grounds: (a) abuse of discretion. the voluntary arbitrator is now mandated to render an award or decision within 20 calendar days from the date of submission of the dispute and such decision shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods." It is to be noted that the appeal in the instances cited were to be made to the National Labor Relations Commission and not to the courts. 2039 and 2040 applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining. that voluntary arbitrators. and (b) gross incompetence. speedy and amicable method of settling disputes. arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes. It is to be borne in mind. The instant case involves technical discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body that has expertise in those areas. We rule in the negative. whichever is lower. A court action may likewise be proper where the arbitrator has not been selected by the parties. assuming arguendo that the dispute is arbitrable. the Court will not engage in a review of the facts found nor even of the law as interpreted or applied by the arbitrator unless the supposed errors of fact or of law are so patent and gross and prejudicial as to amount to a grave abuse of discretion or an exces de pouvoir on the part of the arbitrator. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration. without prejudice to Articles 2038.  Additionally. the dispute arose from the parties’ incongruent positions on whether certain provisions of their Agreement could be applied to the facts. "However. Being an inexpensive. involving an amount exceeding One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100.is encouraged by the Supreme Court. the court shall suspend the same and the parties shall be directed forthwith to proceed to arbitration. 2039 and 2040." Even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared "final" by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted. by the nature of their functions. 2044 of the Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators' award is not absolute and without exceptions. In a special civil action of certiorari."16 Under the original Labor Code. It is thus regarded as the “wave of the future” in international civil and commercial disputes. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. because the awards are still judicially reviewable under certain conditions. there are grounds for vacating. an order to arbitrate should be granted.000. v. the pivotal inquiry is whether subject arbitration award is indeed beyond the ambit of the court's power of judicial review.  Where the conditions described in Articles 2038. therefore."  Similarly. act in a quasi-judicial capacity.00) or forty-percent (40%) of the paid-up capital of the respondent employer. arbitration -. especially of the commercial kind. may the parties who agree to submit their disputes to arbitration further provide that the arbitrators' award shall be final. that their decisions should not be beyond the scope of the power of judicial review of this Court. as follows. It should be stressed too.along with mediation. the new Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration has dispensed with this requirement and recourse to the CIAC may now be availed of whenever a contract “contains a clause for the submission of a future controversy to arbitration” .  LM Power Engineering Corp. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups (2003) Held: Essentially. With the subsequent deletion of the abovecited provision from the Labor Code. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward.  Clearly. voluntary arbitration awards or decisions were final. The Subcontract of the parties contain an arbitration clause. unappealable and executory? Article 2044 of the Civil Code recognizes the validity of such stipulation. the inclusion of an arbitration clause in a contract does not ipso facto divest the courts of jurisdiction to pass upon the findings of arbitral bodies. However. the failure to file a formal request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) precluded the latter from acquiring jurisdiction over the question.

Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations
with jurisdiction to decide a construction dispute. The arbitral clause in the Agreement is a commitment on the part of the parties to submit to arbitration the disputes covered therein. Because that clause is binding, they are expected to abide by it in good faith. And because it covers the dispute between the parties in the present case, either of them may compel the other to arbitrate. enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. In line with the national concerns for and highest respect accorder to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lock-outs in HOSPITALS, CLINICS, and SIMILAR MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL, to every extent possible, BE AVOIDED, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted to SUBSTANTIALLY MINIMIZE, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, 1. it shall be the DUTY of striking union or locking out employer to provide and maintain an EFFECTIVE SKELETAL WORKFORCE of medical and other health personnel, 2. Whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may IMMEDIATELY assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose the contending parties are STRICTLY ENJOINED to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of back wages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded 1. From DETERMINING THE INDUSTRIES that, in HIS OPINION, are indispensable to the national interest, and 2. From intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. Sec. 22 RA 8791 Banking institutions are industries indispensable to the national interest. PAL v. NLRC (1989) Neither can proceedings on appeal before the NLRC en banc be considered as part of the arbitration proceeding. In its broad sense, arbitration is the reference of a dispute to an impartial third

11.05 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
1. DEFINITION AND NATURE OF DISPUTE SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION Compulsory Arbitration is by mandate of law. While voluntary arbitration is by agreement of parties.  What is the type of dispute subject to compulsory arbitration? Labor disputes in industry indispensable to the national interest. Who is initiating party? Initiated by the Secretary of Labor or the President.

Take note that the NLRC has no authority to initiate. The NLRC only comes into the picture when the secretary of labor or the President certifies the case to them. Art. 263 (g) Strikes, Picketing, and Lock-outs When, in his OPINION,  there exists a LABOR DISPUTE  causing or likely to cause a STRIKE OR LOCKOUT  in an INDUSTRY INDISPENDSABLE TO THE NATIONAL INTERESTS, The Secretary of Labor and Employment MAY 1. assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it OR 2. certify the same to the Commission (NLRC) for COMPULSORY ARBITRATION. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of: AUTOMATICALLY enjoining the intended or impending strike or lock-out as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, 1. All striking or locked-out employees shall IMMEDIATELY RETURN TO WORK 2. AND the employer shall IMMEDIATELY resume operations and READMIT all workers under the SAME terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lock-out. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
120 of 139

Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations
person, chosen by the parties or appointed by statutory authority to hear and decide the case in controversy [Chan Linte v. Law Union and Rock, Inc. Co., 42 Phil. 548 (1921)]. When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions, the proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration. In labor cases, compulsory arbitration is the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties Under the Labor Code, it is the Labor Arbiter who is clothed with the authority to conduct compulsory arbitration on cases involving termination disputes [Article 217, Pres. Decree No. 442, as amended]. When the Labor Arbiter renders his decision, compulsory arbitration is deemed terminated because by then the hearing and determination of the controversy has ended. Any appeal raised by an aggrieved party from the Labor Arbiter's decision is already beyond the scope of arbitration since in the appeal stage, the NLRC en banc merely reviews the Labor Arbiter's decision for errors of fact or law and no longer duplicates the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the clause "pending final resolution of the case by arbitration" should be understood to be limited only to the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, such that when the latter rendered his decision, the case was finally resolved by arbitration. GTE Directories Corp. v. GTE Directories Corp. Employees Union (1991) Minister Sanchez decided the dispute in the exercise of the jurisdiction assumed by his predecessor in accordance with Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. Even that assumption s is open to question. The production and publication of telephone directories, which is the principal activity of GTE, can scarcely be described as an industry affecting the national interest. GTE is a publishing firm chiefly dependent on the marketing and sale of advertising space for its not inconsiderable revenues. Its services, while of value, cannot be deemed to be in the same category of such essential activities as "the generation or distribution of energy" or those undertaken by "banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries."  It cannot be regarded as playing as vital a role in communication as other mass media. The small number of employees involved in the dispute, the employer's payment of "P10 million in income tax alone to the Philippine government," and the fact that the "top officers of the union were dismissed during the conciliation process," obviously do not suffice to make the dispute in the case at bar one "adversely affecting the national interest." Luzon Development Bank v. Association of Development Bank Employees (1995) Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party. The essence of arbitration remains since a resolution of a dispute is arrived at by resort to a disinterested third party whose decision is final and binding on the parties, but in compulsory arbitration, such a third party is normally appointed by the government. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA (2004) A cursory reading of the above provision shows that when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest or certifies the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. Moreover, if one had already taken place, all striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The powers granted to the Secretary of Labor under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the police power of the State, with the aim of promoting public good: When the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted “great breadth of discretion” in order to find a solution to a labor dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the automatic enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or the lifting thereof if one has already taken place.  Assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute, or as in this case the certification of the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, always co-exists with an order for workers to return to work immediately and for employers to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. That respondent’s business is of national interest is not disputed. It is engaged in coastwise shipping services for the transportation of passengers and cargoes.  The direct intervention of this Office becomes imperative on account of the magnitude of the adverse effect of any work stoppage at the Company to the regional and national economy. Under the present state of things, the exercise of this Office’s power as embodied under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended, is warranted. The maritime industry is indubitably imbued with national interest. Under the circumstances, the Labor Secretary correctly intervened in the labor dispute between the parties to this case by certifying the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees’ Union v. CA (2004) The CA based its decision on this Court’s ruling in UST v. NLRC. There, the Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute between striking teachers and the university. He ordered the striking teachers to return to work and the university to accept them under the same terms and conditions.  However, in a subsequent order, the NLRC provided payroll reinstatement for the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
121 of 139

Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations
striking teachers as an alternative remedy to actual reinstatement.  True, this Court held therein that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in providing for the alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement. This Court found that it was merely an error of judgment, which is not correctible by a special civil action for certiorari. The NLRC was only trying its best to work out a satisfactory ad hoc solution to a festering and serious problem. However, this Court notes that the UST ruling was made in the light of one very important fact: the teachers could not be given back their academic assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return to work was given in the middle of the first semester of the academic year.  The NLRC was, therefore, faced with a situation where the striking teachers were entitled to a return to work order, but the university could not immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and detrimental to the students to change teachers at that point in time. In the present case, there is no showing that the facts called for payroll reinstatement as an alternative remedy. A strained relationship between the striking employees and management is no reason for payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement. Petitioner correctly points out that labor disputes naturally involve strained relations between labor and management, and that in most strikes, the relations between the strikers and the non-strikers will similarly be tense. Nevertheless, the government must still perform its function and apply the law, especially if, as in this case, national interest is involved. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Secretary did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ordering payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement? This question is answered by the nature of Article 263(g). As a general rule, the State encourages an environment wherein employers and employees themselves must deal with their problems in a manner that mutually suits them best. This is the basic policy embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, which was further echoed in Article 211 of the Labor Code.  Hence, a voluntary, instead of compulsory, mode of dispute settlement is the general rule. However, Article 263(g), which allows the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute involving an industry indispensable to the national interest, provides an exception:
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. x x x

This provision is viewed as an exercise of the police power of the State. A prolonged strike or lockout can be inimical to the national economy and, therefore, the situation is imbued with public necessity and involves the right of the State and the public to self-protection. Under Article 263(g), all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.  This Court must point out that the law uses the precise phrase of “under the same terms and conditions,” revealing that it contemplates only actual reinstatement.  This is in keeping with the rationale that any work stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry can be inimical to the national economy. It is clear that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor from the excesses of management, nor was it written to ease management from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or slowdown. It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the Secretary’s subsequent order for mere payroll reinstatement constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Even in the exercise of his discretion under Article 236(g), the Secretary must always keep in mind the purpose of the law. Time and again, this Court has held that when an official by-passes the law on the asserted ground of attaining a laudable objective, the same will not be maintained if the intendment or purpose of the law would be defeated. 2. RATIONALE ARBITRATION FOR COMPULSORY

National Federation of Labor v. MOLE (1983) "The very nature of a return-to-work order issued in a certified case lends itself to no other construction.  The certification attests to the urgency of the matter, affecting as it does an industry indispensable to the national interest. The order is issued in the exercise of the court's compulsory power of arbitration, and therefore must be obeyed until set aside.  To say that its effectivity must await affirmance on a motion for reconsideration is not only to emasculate it but indeed to defeat its import, for by then the deadline fixed for the return to work would, in the ordinary course, have already passed and hence can no longer be affirmed insofar as the time element is concerned." It is quite apparent, therefore, why this case calls for prompt decision. After this long lapse of time, respondent Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. had failed to abide by the clear and mandatory requirement of the law. It would negate the very purpose of a compulsory arbitration, which precisely is intended to call a halt to a pending strike by requiring that the status quo prior to its

UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP
122 of 139

a fair and just solution of the differences between an employer and his workers regarding the terms and conditions of work in the industry concerned which in the opinion of the President involves the national interest. assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and the issuance of a return-to-work order had become the only way of breaking the deadlock and maintaining the status quo ante pending resolution of the dispute." [Art. School of Business Administration v. 356. 3. if one of the parties fails to live up to such a norm. namely." As contended by the SolGen. 9. collective bargaining.  The RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case filed by some PSBA students.000 students. This is the foundation of that court's jurisdiction in what may be termed as a certification case. if the employer and the workers are able to arrive at an amicable settlement by free and voluntary collective bargaining preferably thru a labor union. Phil. 1973 Constitution. It cannot be denied that the private respondent is engaged in an undertaking UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 123 of 139 . Manila Cordage Company v. and just and humane conditions of work. that the power of compulsory arbitration. cannot be countenanced. This power is expressly granted by Art. and the failure to admit the striking employees back to work in the meantime.S. An instance of unconstitutional application would be discernible if what is ordained by the fundamental law. compulsory arbitration. "there can be no such unconstitutional application (of BP 227) because all that Minister has done is to certify the labor dispute for arbitration and thereafter personally assume jurisdiction over it." [Yick Wo v. involving as it does a labor dispute over which the labor agencies had exclusive jurisdiction.] It does not even have to go that far. Sec. Petitioner contends that the Acting Secretary erred when he found that the strike staged by respondent union and its members. That the regular courts have no jurisdiction over labor disputes and to issue injunctions against strikes is well-settled. there is no violation of "the rights of workers to selforganization. before the court is able to use its good offices.]  It is of course manifest that there is such unconstitutional application if a law "fair on its face and impartial in appearance is applied and administered by a public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand. except as it may become necessary to determine whether or not the agreement forged by the parties is not contrary to law. must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor. It is. It must be stressed anew. Hopkins. . II. while allowable under the [1973] Constitution. error for the petitioners to allege that by the mere act of certifying a labor dispute for compulsory arbitration and issuing a return to work order. However. however. 263(g) of the Labor Code. he has not favored one party over the other. it is but in consonance with the objective of the Industrial Peace Act to promote unionism and free collective bargaining that the court should step out of the picture and declare its function in the premises at an end. The arbiter then is called upon to take due care that in the decision to be reached. the Acting Secretary of Labor merely provided for a formal forum for the parties to ventilate their positions with the end in view of settling the dispute. was a fit subject of a return to work order. if not totally averted by avoiding the stoppage of work as a result of a strike or lock out or any lagging of the activities of the industry or the possibility of these contingencies which might cause detriment to such national interest.  Acting Secretary Noriel did exactly what he was supposed to do under the Labor Code. to be in full accord with the Constitution. The inconsistencies between what was sought by private respondent. . It may also be added that due to petitioner's intransigent refusal to attend the conciliation conferences called after the union struck. affecting as it did some 9. Noriel(1988) In the opinion of Acting Secretary Noriel. thru arbitration by the industrial court. the protection of law. is ignored or disregarded. security of tenure. the Court finds that no error was made by the Acting Secretary. He has not rendered any decision. Nestle Philippines (1990) The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest is in the nature of a POLICE POWER measure. after finding that it adversely affected the national interest. Naturally. 372 (1886). and quite understandable in labor disputes affected with a national interest. PROCESS INITIATION – CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE 1) Initiating Party a) Secretary DOLE b) President Union of Filipino Employees v. so that the damage such employer-worker dispute might cause upon the national interest may be minimized as much as possible. morals or public policy.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations declaration be preserved. the Minister of Labor and Employment thereby "enters the picture on the side of the Company. time is of the essence as far as the eightyone petitioners are concerned. must be with a view to the protection of labor:  . As noted earlier. who had already been restrained by the RTC from picketing and barricading the main gate of the school. 118 U. CIR (1971) The purpose of a presidential certification is nothing more than to bring about soonest. The exercise of the power. the labor dispute adversely affected the national interest." and violates the freedom of expression of workers engaged in picketing. to be free from the taint of unconstitutionality. therefore. "in utter subversion of the constitutional rights of workers. The Solicitor General was correct when he stated that by assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute. He was authorized by law to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.

it being beyond the scope of the certification order. We rule that the prayer to declare the respondent company guilty of acts of unfair labor practice when it allegedly resorted to practices designed to delay the collective bargaining negotiations cannot be subsumed in this petition. Moreover. The compelling consideration of the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction is the fact that  a prolonged strike or lockout is inimical to the national economy and  thus. "(i)t is fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it.00. “the fundamental normative rule that jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause . it committed grave abuse of discretion as it allowed multiplicity of suits and splitting causes of action which are barred by procedural rule. vs." Plainly. the Secretary was explicitly granted by Art. the Secretary's certification order for compulsory arbitration which was intended for the immediate formulation of an already delayed CBA was proper. In the present case. The authority to decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. to hear and decide an employee's claim of UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 124 of 139 . under his visitorial powers.  In Servando. but would also have favorable implications to the community and to the economy as a whole.  As the implementing body. it cannot be faulted in not taking cognizance of other matters that would defeat this purpose. Otherwise. To hold the contrary may even lead to the absurd and undesirable result wherein the Secretary and the labor arbiter concerned may have diametrically opposed rulings. the exclusive and original jurisdiction of which belongs to the labor arbiter.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations affected with public interest being one of the largest manufacturers of food products.the right to act in a case.  The said case was declared to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter since the aggregate claims of each of the employees involved exceeded P5. exceptions thereto. this should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. and decide the same accordingly.  As we have said. the need to implement some measures to suppress any act which will hinder the company's essential productions is indispensable for the promotion of the COMMON GOOD. taken conjointly and rationally construed to subserve the objective of the jurisdiction vested in the Secretary. Necessarily. For the same reason. rather than defeat it. In view of the avowed but limited purpose of respondent's assumption of jurisdiction over this compulsory arbitration case. Our pronouncement on this point should be distinguished from the situation which obtained and our consequent ruling in Servando's. Corollary. the Commission is further tasked to act within the earliest time possible and with the end in view that its action would not only serve the interests of the parties alone. As early as 1913. this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to  all questions and controversies arising therefrom. Baretto. We said that to uphold the Secretary would empower him. the NLRC was thereby charged with the task of implementing the certification order for compulsory arbitration. Its function only is to formulate the terms and conditions of the CBA and cannot go beyond the scope of the order. the decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. 217 is not without. This is evident from the opening proviso therein reading "(e)xcept as otherwise provided under this Code . the Secretary invoked his visitorial and enforcement powers to assume jurisdiction over the ease. the NLRC is  not sitting as a judicial court  but as an administrative body charged with the duty to implement the order of the Secretary. In this case. its authority did not include the power to amend the Secretary's order. When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by the Secretary of Labor. . 263(g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. but contemplates. the proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration In labor cases. Art. v. Int’l Pharmaceuticals Inc. Inc. subject to certain conditions. the issuance of the assailed orders is within the province of the Secretary as authorized by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and Article 217(a) (1) and (5) of the same Code. et al.000. Secretary of DOLE (1992) The foregoing provisions persuade us that the Secretary did not gravely abuse his discretion when he issued the questioned orders.  including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. compulsory arbitration is the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties. Article 263(g) was meant to make both the Secretary (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that because of the public respondent's actuation in this regard. What is compulsory arbitration? "When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions. Under this situation. Moreover. . the Secretary would not be able to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. wherein we referred to the Sec of Labor appropriate labor arbiter a case previously decided by the Secretary. this Court laid down in Herrera vs.  However. In fine.

 The three NLRC cases were just offshoots of the stalemate in the negotiations and the strike. et al. or otherwise submitted to him for resolution." To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the President under the law. when the President took into consideration that the University "has some 18.  The seeming difference is. in the instant case. There was an existing labor dispute as a result of a deadlock in the negotiation for a CBA and the consequent strike. All phases of the labor dispute and the employer-employee relationship may be threshed out before the CIR. failing in this. it is not for the CIR nor this Court to pass upon the correctness of the reasons of the President in certifying the labor dispute to the CIR. it may issue an order fixing the terms and conditions of employment. Torres (1992) An issue that is not part of the dispute may be ruled on a compulsory arbitration case if it was submitted by the parties.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations more than P5. is that because of the strike declared by the members of the minority union which threatens a major industry the President deemed it wise to certify the controversy to the Court of Industrial Relations for adjudication. b. and this Court will not interfere in.. . by virtue of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The fact.  We. ARBITRATION AGENCIES St. however. We held that he could not do that and we. This is the power that the law gives to the President the propriety of its exercise being a matter that only devolves upon him. The jurisdiction of the CIR in a certified case is exclusive (Rizal Cement Co. The same is not the concern of the industrial court. causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. And so. or. therefore. July 30. uphold the Secretary's order to consolidate the NLRC cases with the labor dispute pending before him and his subsequent assumption of jurisdiction over the said NLRC cases for him to be able to competently and efficiently dispose of the dispute in its totality. The issue on whether respondent SECRETARY has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies. the exercise of that prerogative.00. therefore. G. . the rulings above stated seem to run counter to that of PAL v. It has no other alternative.. Thus the court may take either of the following courses: a." that "the continued disruption in the operation of the University will necessarily prejudice the thousand of students". Therein. But the conflict is only apparent. Inc. Before the Secretary of Labor and Employment may take cognizance of an issue which is merely incidental to the labor dispute. not real. and certified the dispute to the CIR. L-12747. Secretary or Labor and Employment. vs. however. reconcilable. We ruled that: ".  To recall. over which the Secretary assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Bautista(1966) "It thus appears that when in the opinion of the President a labor dispute exists in an industry indispensable to national interest and he certifies it to the Court of Industrial Relations the latter acquires jurisdiction to act thereon in the manner provided by law. was already settled in International Pharmaceuticals. it may issue an order forbidding employees to strike or the employer to lockout its employees. 4.  Once the jurisdiction is acquired pursuant to the presidential certification.000. he was thus found to have exceeded his jurisdiction when he restrained the employer from taking disciplinary action against employees who staged an illegal strike. much less curtail. ". and that "the dispute affects the national interest". . Necessarily. Rizal Cement Workers Union (FFW). [T]he Secretary was explicitly granted by Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. Since the matter on the legality or illegality of the strike was never submitted to him for resolution.000 students and employed approximately 500 faculty members. the Secretary has been conferred jurisdiction over cases which would otherwise be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters. and the CIR may issue such order or orders as may be necessary to make effective the exercise of its jurisdiction. however. . the CIR may exercise its broad powers as provided in Commonwealth Act 103. and decide the same accordingly. therefore. the same must be involved in the labor dispute itself. What matters is that by virtue of the certification made by the President the case was placed under the jurisdiction of said court. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 125 of 139 .  The parties involved in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court from the order or orders thus issued by the CIR. We ruled in the latter case that the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in assumption and/or certification cases is limited to the issues that are involved in the disputes or to those that are submitted to him for resolution. including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. Inc. 1960). which was. Feati University v. It can throw the case out in the assumption that the certification was erroneous. In the present case. this authority to assume jurisdictional over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. cited by petitioner. R. Scholastica’s College v. Secretary of Labor and Employment." At first glance. overruled him.

It is indeed inconceivable that an employee."  Thus. Tuico. NLRC). the Court cannot overlook the plain arrogance and pride displayed by the UNION in this labor dispute. Article 263 (g) provides that if a strike has already taken place at the time of assumption. must therefore be immediately complied with. cannot be condoned. as was the case in PAL and he nevertheless acted on it. Inc. that by insisting on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketing the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations. damages and/or other positive and/or affirmative reliefs. supra. the assumption and/or certification order is issued in the exercise of respondent SECRETARY's compulsive power of arbitration and. have already passed and hence can no longer be affirmed insofar as the time element is concerned. It is already in itself knowingly participating in an illegal act. for by then the deadline fixed for the return to work would. NLRC. and that pending resolution of the issue.. the school could not be considered an industry indispensable to national interest. . therefore.. he is deemed to have abandoned his job. in assumption and/or certification cases. even to criminal prosecution against the liable parties . is on the side of the laboring classes (Reliance Surety & Insurance Co." Private respondent UNION maintains that the reason they failed to immediately comply with the return-to-work order was because they questioned the assumption of jurisdiction of respondent SECRETARY. v. the worker will just simply refuse to return to his work and cause a standstill they refused to discharge or allow the management to fill (Sarmiento v. will apply. Otherwise. until set aside.  They were of the impression that being an academic institution. will be allowed in the interim to stand akimbo and wait until five (5) orders shall have been issued for their return before they report back to work. This is absurd. in Federation of Free Workers v. Tomas v. Inciong. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification. Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a returnto-work order may. There was willful disobedience not only to one but two return-towork orders. who are supposed to be well-lettered and well-informed. Effect of non-compliance with return to work order Non-compliance with the certification order of the Sec of Labor or a return to work order of the Commission shall be considered an illegal act committed in the course of the strike or lookout and shall authorize the Sec of Labor or the Commission. . the strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted. the workers were terminated from work after defying the return-to-work order for only nine (9) days. supra)  After all. to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for his resolution is thus one of the instances referred to whereby the latter may exercise concurrent jurisdiction together with the Labor Arbiters. supra. Tuico (1988) The law itself provides that "such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. employees shall immediately return to work.  "To say that the return-to-work order effectivity must wait affirmance in a motion for reconsideration is not only to emasculate it but indeed to defeat its import. as the case may be. and so could be validly replaced. cannot be extended to the striking union officers and members in the instant petition. Noriel where We ruled thus:  "There is no doubt that the on-going labor dispute at the school adversely affects the national interest. all UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 126 of 139 . The sympathy of the Court which. the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes  involving academic institutions was already upheld in Philippine School of Business Administration v. The rationale for this rule is explained in University of Sto. "all striking . a return-towork order is immediately effective and executory notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration It must be strictly complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its validity (Union of Filipro Employees v.  Otherwise. in the ordinary course. Respondent UNION's failure to immediately comply with the return-to-work order of 5 November 1990. 5. Inc. The submission of an incidental issue of a labor dispute. v. supra). Secretary of Labor and Employment. supra. we held in Sarmiento v. Tuico.  Considering that the UNION consisted mainly of teachers.  It is clear from the provisions above quoted that from the moment a worker defies a return-to-work order. ." Moreover. 264 of the Labor Code which provides that any declaration of a strike or lockout after the Secretary of Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute is considered an illegal act. having abandoned their positions. consequently. Nestle' Philippines." This means that by its very terms. the ruling in International Pharmaceuticals.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations If it was not. This position of the UNION is simply flawed. they were under no obligation to immediately return to work. that assumption of jurisdiction is tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion. to enforce the same under pain or loss of employment status or entitlement to full employment benefits from the locking-out employer or backwages. . as a rule. "be declared to have lost his employment status. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION VIOLATION OF ORDER AND Sarmiento v. Inc.  Suffice it to say. The respective liabilities of striking union officers and members who failed to immediately comply with the return-to-work order is outlined in Art. despite a return-to-work order.

One other point that must be underscored is that the return-to-work order is issued pending the determination of the legality or illegality of the strike. The worker must return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and promoting its interest. and has in fact already done so. (a) x x x No strike or lock out shall be declared after the assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 127 of 139 . for the purpose precisely is to maintain the status quo while the determination is being made.  It was not even necessary for the Secretary of Labor to issue another order directing them to return to work. with the return-to-work order following as a matter of course under the law.  Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. unable to employ replacement to perform the work the reluctant striker is unwilling to resume because he is still manning the picket lines? While the ATC has manifested its willingness to accept most of the workers. it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will. More particularly. can it be said that he is just suspending the enjoyment of a right and he is entitled to assert it later as and when he sees fit? In the meantime. It is not correct to say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be disregarded if the strike is illegal. Prohibited Activities.  Otherwise. 263 that the moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest. such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. Worse. they will also claim payment for work not done. CA (2000) It is clear from Art. The worker can of course give up his work. In the instant case. is the management required to keep his position open." It must be stressed that while one purpose of the return-to-work order is to protect the workers who might otherwise be locked out by the employer for threatening or waging the strike. In this connection. It was particularly for the purpose of avoiding such a development that the labor dispute was certified to the NLRC. Its reason is that these persons. instead of complying with the return-to-work order. stoppage of work in the firm will be hurtful not only to both the employer and the employees. on the ground that they are still legally employed although actually engaged in activities inimical to their employer's interest. Article 264(a) of the Labor Code clearly provides that: Article 264. not to mention possible cancellation of the contracts of the company with foreign importers.  By so doing. regardless of the outcome of the compulsory arbitration proceedings. Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty. it has balked at the demand of the remaining workers to be also allowed to return to work. those workers who refused to obey the said order and instead waged the restrained strike are not entitled to be paid for work not done or to reinstatement to the positions they have abandoned by their refusal to return thereto as ordered. these strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted. and to immediately return to work but which directive the herein petitioners opted to ignore. are entitled to be paid for work they have actually performed. it is the national economy that will suffer because of the resultant reduction in our export earnings and our dollar reserves. as this Court held in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v.  Conversely. but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike. the workers who contend that their strike is legal can refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill in the company operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge or allow the management to fill. if he does not want to obey the order. as most of the workers have done.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. thus severing his ties with the company. and so could be validly replaced. If the worker refuses to obey the return-towork order. Accordingly. the more important reason is to prevent impairment of the national interest in case the operations of the company are disrupted by a refusal of the strikers to return to work as directed. and while as a right it may be waived. That is the real reason such return can be compelled. having abandoned their positions. Not a violation of right against involuntary servitude So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude. 1995 thereby necessitating the issuance of another order expressly directing the striking workers to cease and desist from their actual strike.  However. Gotamco Sawmills. the Court holds that the returnto-work order should benefit only those workers who complied therewith and. petitioners refused to acknowledge this directive of the Secretary of Labor on September 8. even if the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order. the ATC submits. The mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return-to-work order. insisted on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketed the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations.

.e. a case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. 277 i. The Honorable Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. The necessary consequence thereof are also detailed by the Supreme Court in its various rulings. we ruled that: “The extent of judicial review over the Secretary of Labor’s arbitral award is not limited to a determination of grave abuse in the manner of the secretary’s exercise of his statutory powers. That contention is misplaced.” Disini: RULES REGARDING RETURN TO WORK ORDER 1) The moment there is Presidential (or by Secretary of Labor) assumption of jurisdiction.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. as the case may be. Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided. One merely has to file a motion for clarification. take note of the duty to comply. Having thus resolved the threshold issue as hereinabove discussed. Tuico) 3) A return-to-work order must be complied with as a matter of duty not just a right. or the Regional Director. the Executive Labor Arbiter. that mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. v. the aforesaid officials shall. in the appreciation of and the conclusions the Secretary drew from the evidence presented.” As regards the third assigned error. In that case. the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties. Quisumbing. this Court’s “review of the substance” does not mean a re-calibration of the evidence presented before the DOLE but only a determination of whether the Secretary of Labor’s award passed the test of reasonableness when he arrived at his conclusions made thereon. CA (2000) SOLE OFFICE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF JURISDICTION INCLUDING THE COMMISSION OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. In Marcopper Mining Corp. 4) A return-to-work order may be appealed but even pending appeal the return-to-work order must still be followed. To ensure speedy labor justice. and so could be validly replaced. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. petitioners contend that a resolution of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should include the correction of the Secretary of Labor’s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon pursuant to the doctrine laid down in Meralco v. This Court is entitled to. and a copy thereof served upon the parties. The Secretary of Labor and Employment. or the Labor Arbiter. whether a return to work order is issued or not. the periods provided in this Code within which decisions or resolutions of labor relations cases or matters should be rendered shall be mandatory. Brillantes (254 SCRA 595). Upon expiration of the corresponding period. Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. Thus. 263 Strikes. be readmitted to work. we declared in Meralco. the Secretary of Labor and Employment. workers forfeited their right to. i. or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or Med-Arbiter. it necessarily follows that the strike of the Union cannot be viewed as anything but illegal for having been staged in open and knowing defiance of the assumption and return-to-work orders. the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute.  We have held in a number of cases that defiance to the assumption and return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for loss of the employment status of any striking union officer or member. The decision of the President. as the case may be. However. having abandoned their employment. that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike. Art. i. that: UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 128 of 139 . see to it that the case or matter shall be decided or resolved without any further delay. 5) According to the Bagiou Colleges case: If there is doubt. For this purpose. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period. picketing and lockouts. and must – in the exercise of its judicial power – review the substance of the Secretary’s award when grave abuse of discretion is alleged to exist in the award. Tuico) 2) A return to work order does not violate the Involuntary Servitude clause (Sarmiento v. without prejudice to any liability which may have been incurred as a consequence thereof. the return to work order is an integral part of the assumption of jurisidiction. 6. the High Tribunal stated in no uncertain terms that – “by staging a strike after the assumption of jurisdiction or certification for arbitration.” The rationale of this prohibition is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by the competent authority. (Sarmiento v. or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or MedArbiter. or the Regional Director. TAKE NOTE: The extent of authority of the compulsory arbitration are those that may be necessary to settle the dispute. a certification stating why a decision or resolution has not been rendered within the said period shall be issued forthwith by the Chairman of the Commission.

is untenable. to award backwages when there is no finding of illegal dismissal (Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation. In the absence of any showing of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 154 SCRA 166). of the public respondent’s office. We have gone over the records of the case at bar and we see no cogent basis to hold that the Secretary of Labor has abused his discretion.  However. it must first be shown that the tribunal.” The contention of petitioners that they should have been allowed to present evidence when their demurrer to evidence was denied by the Secretary of Labor. who presided over the hearing directed the parties to submit their respective position papers together with the affidavits and documentary evidence within ten (10) days. this translates into the exercise of proper discretion and to the observance of due process. 127215 ordering the Secretary of Labor to determine with dispatch the legality of the strike.  The fact that the Hearing Officer of DOLE admitted their demurrer to evidence is not a valid excuse for them not to comply with the directive to submit their position UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 129 of 139 .  In fact. Otherwise. or any plain. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has indeed acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction.  The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties to a labor case are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in the event it will be decided that no further hearing should be conducted or that hearing was not necessary. paper and to attach thereto affidavits and documentary evidence within 10 days. if not totally averted.” The main thrust of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the same “was not possible considering the strikers had defied the return-to-work Order of this Office”.  Petitioners’ non-compliance with that directive should not be ascribed as the fault of the Sec of Labor when he denied their demurrer to evidence and forthwith rendered decision on the illegality of the strike. reasonableness. however. 263(g) makes it incumbent for him to bring about soonest. It is simply inconsistent. National Labor Relations Commission. and that there is no appeal. Hearing Officer. in the meantime. 286 SCRA 245) when the record shows that the striking workers did not comply with lawful orders for them to return to work during said periods of time. the question we have to answer in deciding this case is whether the Secretary’s actions have been reasonable in light of the parties positions and the evidence they presented. they will recover something they have not or could not have earned by their willful defiance of the return-to-work order.  While the Company submitted its position paper together with supporting evidence and rested its case for resolution. reasonableness implies the absence of arbitrariness. for this Court to properly exercise the power of judicial review over a decision of an administrative agency. the status quo obtaining in the workplace”. the COMPANY is under no obligation to pay backwages to them. the Secretary of Labor observed that while “it was obligatory on the part of both parties to restore. submitted only its position paper but without attaching thereto any supporting documentary evidence. in legal parlance. The record shows that in the hearing of September 22. which is. the strikers were not illegally dismissed. Thus. a patently incongruous and unjust situation (Santos v. that there is an illegally dismissed employee and that illegally dismissed employee would otherwise have been entitled to reinstatement. Lita V. The grant of plenary powers to the Secretary of Labor under Art. No. by avoiding stoppage of work or any lagging of the activities of the industry or the possibility of these contingencies which might cause detriment to such national interest. Aglibut. NEGATING THE PETITIONERS’ VESTED RIGHT TO BACKWAGES Since. absurd. as correctly found by the Secretary of Labor.  A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position paper cannot claim to have been denied due process. there is no basis to award them backwages corresponding to said time frames.  Petitioners chose to rely on the Rules of Court by filing a demurrer to evidence in the hope of a favorable decision and disregarded our resolution in G. With such blatant disregard by the strikers of official edicts ordering their “temporary reinstatement”. nay. 1998 attended by the parties.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations “In this case we believe that the more appropriate and available standard and one does not require a constitutional interpretation—is simply the standard of In layman’s terms. is not present in the case at bench. Atty. judicial review may not be had over an administrative agency’s decision. The same view holds with respect to the award of financial assistance or separation pay. “THAT TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN THE COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY HAVE NO ROOM IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. such as the DOLE. The assumption for granting financial assistance or separation pay. a fair and just solution to the differences between the employer and the employees so that the damage such labor dispute might cause upon the national interest may be minimized as much as possible.R. herein petitioners.

moreover. petitioner union even asked Labor Arbiter to suspend the proceedings before him and consolidate the same with the case before the Secretary of Labor. Article XIII of the Constitution. As the appellate court pointed out. which specifically prohibits public authorities from interfering in purely union matters. to manage their own affairs. activities and programs. OPTION – SUBMIT CASE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AFTER CERTIFICATION Art. Petitioner union maintained that the Labor Arbiter and the appellate court disregarded the "parol evidence rule" when they upheld the allegation of respondent company that the work schedule of its employees was from 6 a. The assailed order of the Secretary of Labor. the subsequent participation of petitioner union in the continuation of the hearing was in effect an affirmation of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor. Inc. and even contrary to. 263 Strikes. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. the parties acceded and participated in the proceedings. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND LABOR RIGHTS Philtread Workers Union v. 8. the attendant facts show that such exceptional circumstances do not obtain in the instant cases to warrant the grant of financial assistance to the striking workers.: “Article 3. what is stated in the CBA. 2. (h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process. which enjoins the strike. In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter. Hon.m.m. and from 6 pm to 6 am. the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Hence. granting financial assistance to them is not and cannot be justified Necessarily. The appellate court also correctly held that the question of the Secretary of Labor’s jurisdiction over labor and labor-related disputes was already settled in International Pharmaceutical. hence. 1995 constitute serious misconduct as well as reflective of their moral character. knowing fully well that there was also a directive for Labor Arbiter Caday to thereafter submit his report and recommendation to the Secretary. vs. is an utter interference of the workers’ right to selforganization. the strikers’ open and willful defiance of the assumption order dated September 16. A cursory reading of Article 263 (g) allegedly shows that the power of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify a dispute for compulsory arbitration is strictly restricted to cases involving industries that are indispensable to national interest. Interphil Laboratories Union v. to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence other than. to elect their representatives in full freedom.  However. picketing and lockouts. Petitioners posit that the instant labor dispute does not adversely affect the national interest. The tire industry has long ceased to be a government protected industry and. including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. and decide the same accordingly. We are likewise mindful that financial assistance is allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character o However. When Acting Labor Secretary Brillantes ordered Labor Arbiter Caday to continue with the hearing of the illegal strike case. Interphil Laboratories (2001) On the matter of the authority and jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to rule on the illegal strike committed by petitioner union. Secretary of Labor and ALU where the Court declared:  In the present case. the parties may opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration.  In fact. it cannot be denied that the issues of "overtime boycott" and "work slowdown" amounting to illegal strike before Labor Arbiter are intertwined with the labor dispute before the Labor Secretary. 1. it is undisputed that the petition to declare the strike illegal before Labor Arbiter was filed long before the Secretary of Labor issued the assumption order on 14 February 1994. The order is likewise contrary to Article 3 of the International Labor Organization Convention No. Workers’ and Employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules.  The reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. the Secretary was explicitly granted by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 7.  Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. 87. and therefore is illegal. Confessor (1997) Petitioners contend that Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code violates the workers’ right to strike which is provided for by Section 3. to 6 p. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 130 of 139 .Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations  We are of course aware that financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice in exceptional circumstances and as an equitable concession. o To our mind. viz.

as a result of a labor dispute will certainly prejudice the employment and livelihood of its workers and their dependents. 67 Phil. health. which has been defined as the power inherent in a government to enact laws. As observed by the Secretary of Labor. Nestle Philippines. 6715. This is what the parties did in this case. The Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. Section 27 of which amended paragraphs (g) and (l) of Article 263 of the Labor Code. if its efforts were not successful.  Although the union’s petition was for “compulsory arbitration. Vera Reyes. it employs about 700 people. no law has ever been passed by Congress expressly repealing Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. We do not agree with the petitioners that the respondent company is not indispensable to national interest considering that the tire industry has already been liberalized.05 VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION 1. shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. Inc. when in the exercise of such right. Neither may the 1987 Constitution be considered to have impliedly repealed the said Articles considering that there is no showing that said articles are inconsistent with the said Constitution. The foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right to strike but merely regulates it. v. 190). that the labor dispute in the Country is imbued with national interest. But this was changed by R. certify the dispute to a labor arbiter for compulsory arbitrarion. the Board shall “encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.  On the contrary. otherwise known as Herrera law. petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to render the decision in question. The strike in Philtread will not adversely affect the supply of tires in the market and the supply of imported tires is more than sufficient to meet the market requirements. the same had already been resolved in Union of Filipino Employees vs. 262 provides:  Jurisdiction over other labor disputes – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. 1989. Petitioner joined the petition and the case was submitted for decision.  Indeed.  Art 250(e) of the Labor Code now provides that if effects of conciliation fail.” With specific reference to cases involving deadlocks in collective bargaining. his certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to impede the workers’ right to strike but to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute. the union filed a petition for compulsory arbitration in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.:  “The Company is one of the tire manufacturers in the country employing more or less 700 workers. the continued validity and operation of Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code has been recognized by no less than the Congress of the Philippines when the latter enacted into law R. no court has ever declared that the said articles are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution. morals and general welfare of society (People vs.A. The interests of both the employers and employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue preference. to wit:  “In the case at bar.  They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily. manila Central Line Free Workers Union (1998) Despite the fact that it agreed with the union to submit their dispute to the labor arbiter for arbitration. Moreover.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation is not indispensable to the national interest. Petitioner contends that the policy of the law now is to encourage resort to conciliation and voluntary arbitration as Art 250(e) of the Labor Code provides. DEFINED Manila Central Line Corp. viz. Art. therefore. There is no doubt. After the Board failed to resolve the bargaining deadlock between parties.  The rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute.. safety. Furthermore.  At any rate. the labor dispute may lead to the possible closure of the Company and loss of employment to hundreds of its workers. it must be noted that Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code have been enacted pursuant to the police power of the State. the BLR should call them to conciliation meetings and. At this point in time when all government efforts are geared towards economic recovery and development by encouraging both foreign and domestic investments to generate employment. we cannot afford to derail the same as a result of a labor dispute considering that there are alternative dispute resolution machineries available to address labor problems of this nature. This will definitely aggravate the already worsening unemployment situation in the country and discourage foreign and domestic investors from further investing in the country. the Labor Code formerly provided that if the parties in collective bargaining fail to reach an agreement. Moreover. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workers’ constitutional right to strike. On the issue of the constitutionality of Article 263 (g).6715 which took effect on March 21. Any work disruption thereat.  11. within constitutional limits. to promote the order. Thus.” the subsequent agreement of petitioner to submit the matter for arbitration in UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 131 of 139 . Held: The petition is devoid of merit.A. Philtread supplies 22% of the tire products in the country. national interests will be affected. upon agreement of the parties.

shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the CBA. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. but that is impracticable because it will be a value judgment of the arbitrator and not the parties.— The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. under Art 217 of the Labor Code.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations effect made the arbitration a voluntary one. ex: CBA or company policies). BASIS FOR VOLUNTARY AND RATIONALE ARBITRATION personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. XIII. It does not matter that the person chosen as arbitrator is a labor arbiter who. Interest Disputes Rights disputes: Claim for violation of a specific right (Arising from a contract.  shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. 5. Art. 3 x x x The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes.  The essence of voluntary arbitration.  For purposes of this article. Interest Disputes: These ponders on the questions “what should be included in the CBA. The Commission. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. is charged with the compulsory arbitration of certain labor cases. parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. ARBITRATOR SELECTION Art.” Strictly speaking. Art. 3. that a matter is submitted for arbitration. 260 x x x. preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. Moreover. For this purpose. 261 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. petitioner must be deemed to be estopped from questioning the authority of Labor Arbiter.  Accordingly. rather than compulsion of law. to act as voluntary arbitrator and render a decision in this case. There is nothing in the law that prohibits these labor arbiters from also acting as voluntary arbitrators as long as the parties agree to have him hear and decide their dispute. Rights Disputes v. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within 7 month calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrators. violations of a CBA. to refer their dispute for arbitration to him. Voluntary Arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this matters.— The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining 1987 Constitution.  or include in the agreement the procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary Arbitrators. xxx 4. upon agreement of the parties. Sec.  In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrators. ARBITRABLE ISSUES Art. including conciliation. its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the apartment of Labor and employment shall not entertain disputes and grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It was only after the decision was rendered that petitioner raised the question of lack of jurisdiction. except those which are gross in character. PROCESS ENCOURAGEMENT/PROMOTION Establishing Machinery Dispute Settlement – Collective Bargaining Agreement and Time Frame Art. the parties may choose a voluntary arbitrator to decide on terms and conditions of employment. as may be necessary. Petitioner agreed together with the union.— The voluntary arbitrators shall have ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation and enforcement of company UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 132 of 139 . 2. 262 Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. after all is that it is by agreement of the parties. gross violations of CBA shall mean flagrant and/ or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations.  Absent such express stipulation. the phrase "all disputes" should be construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of i. --. The pertinent provisions of the Labor Code. The Commission.  Thus. Termination disputes. Hence. the following cases involving all workers."  Ergo. which in this case is the sole issue of the date of regularization of the workers. since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by express provision of law. he in effect submitted himself to the procedure set forth in the CBA regarding submission of unresolved grievances to a Voluntary Arbitrator. 261.  It is clear from the claim/assistance request form submitted by petitioner to AMOSUP that he was challenging the legality of his dismissal for lack of cause and lack of due process. Petitioner asserts that the arbitrator must confine its adjudication to those issues submitted by the parties for arbitration. Court of appeals (2000) Private respondents attempt to justify the conferment of jurisdiction over the case on the Voluntary Arbitrator on the ground that the issue involves the proper interpretation and implementation of the Grievance Procedure found in the CBA. Claims for actual. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment.(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide. The case is primarily a termination dispute. Ludo and Luym Corp v. rates of pay. Saornido (2003) Petitioner contends that the appellate court gravely erred when it upheld the award of benefits which were beyond the terms of submission agreement. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. moral. xxx Art. Unfair labor practice cases: 2. 217.not falling within any of these categories should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific provision of law.  The issue of whether there was proper interpretation and implementation of the CBA provisions comes into play only because the grievance procedure provided for in the CBA was not observed after he sought his Union’s assistance in contesting his termination. v. There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that illegal termination disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. which shall act with the same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as prescribed. then there would be no reason to invoke the need to interpret and implement the CBA provisions properly. 3. respondents argue that the arbitrator is empowered to award the assailed benefits because notwithstanding the sole issue of the date of regularization. In San Miguel Corp. its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. They point out that when petitioner sought the assistance of his Union to avail of the grievance machinery. read: Art. even in the absence of stenographic notes. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Illegal termination disputes . Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article. except those which are gross in character. disputes Voluntary Arbitrators. contract-implementation. the whole arbitration process would be rendered purely academic and the law creating it inutile. JURISDICTION Viviero v.e. Accordingly. The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor Arbiters is clearly defined and specifically delineated in the Labor Code.. the award of benefits by the arbitrator was done in excess of jurisdiction. the question to be resolved necessarily springs from the primary issue of whether there was a valid termination. — The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. those cases that workers may file involving wage. National Labor Relations Commission this Court held that the phrase "all other labor disputes" may include termination disputes provided that the agreement between the Union and the Company states "in unequivocal language that [the parties] conform to the submission of termination disputes and unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration. 4. within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension. Held: The argument is untenable. Otherwise. whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. it is not sufficient to merely say that parties to the CBA agree on the principle that "all disputes" should first be submitted to a Voluntary Arbitrator. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 133 of 139 . or interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. On the matter of the benefits. relating to contract-interpretation. without this.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Agreement. standard companion issues on reliefs and remedies are deemed incorporated.

Hearing may be adjourned for a cause or upon agreement by the parties. The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based. It bears stressing that the underlying reason why this case arose is to settle. and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party . Inc. 442.” PROCEDURE Art. resolutions. upon agreement of the parties. this Court ruled that a voluntary arbitrator partakes of the nature of a “quasijudicial instrumentality” and is within the ambit of Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act. the arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement. to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. as amended. in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason. once and for all. Liner. boards or commissions.B. 261 and 262. as already indicated. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. law and jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator enough leeway of authority as well as adequate prerogative to accomplish the reason for which the law on voluntary arbitration was created – speedy labor justice. the amount thereof. which provides: (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments. in Reformist Union of R. It shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or its decision by the parties.  In one case. Generally. may issue a writ of execution requiring wither the sheriff of the Commission or regular Courts or any public official whom the parties may designate in the submission agreement to execute the final decision. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. 262-A Procedures The voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have the power to hold hearings. as amended. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 134 of 139 . Comparatively. — The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. order. the arbitrator can assume that he has the necessary power to make a final settlement since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. To require them to file another action for payment of such benefits would certainly undermine labor proceedings and contravene the constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor. NATURE OF OFFICE AND FUNCTION Nippon Paint Employees Union v. NLRC. decisions. it shall be mandatory for the Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators to render an award or decision within twenty ?(20) calendar days from the date of submission of the dispute to voluntary arbitration. 262. The attendance of any third party or the exclusion of any witness from the proceedings shall be determined by the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. compulsory arbitration has been defined both as “the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties. viewed his authority as embracing not merely the determination of the abstract question of whether or not a performance bonus was to be granted but also. Art. the provisions of this Act. that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases enumerated in the Labor Code.” While a voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s personnel.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. or award. the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides. The Arbitrator. receive evidences and take whatever action is necessary to resolve the issue or issues subject of dispute. While the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or regularization. CA (2004) In the case of Luzon Development Bank vs. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. NLRC.  Nevertheless. and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of In construing the above provisions. said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws. the issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered issue. including efforts to effect a voluntary settlement between parties. the Employees’ Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission. shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. Articles 217. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees. All parties to the dispute shall be entitled to attend the arbitration proceedings. instrumentalities. in a proper case. we held in San Jose vs. By the same token. in the affirmative case. the ultimate question of whether respondent employees are entitled to higher benefits. vs. the SC stressed that “xxx the Voluntary Arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority subject only. can possibly include money claims in one form or another. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies. Upon motion of any interested party. Unless the parties agreed otherwise.

Citibank Employees Union v. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides. in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason. This salutary rule has been disregarded on occasion by this Court in instances where valid and compelling circumstances warrant. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission. and b) its petition which makes specious allegations of “grave abuse of discretion” but asserts the failure of the voluntary arbitrator to properly appreciate facts and conclusions of law. Agricultural Inventions Board. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. citing. National Electrification Administration. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. Securities and Exchange Commission. National Telecommunications Commission. Scope. the cases of Ocampo vs. find that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent in issuing the award (decision). We have arrived at the conclusion that the respondent's position is not well taken. Trademarks and Technology Transfer. judgments. The fact that the NPEU used the Rule 65 modality as a substitute for a lost appeal is made plainly manifest by: a) its filing the said petition 45 days after the expiration of the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 43 appeal. in support of such contention. 6. or award. order. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA cannot be faulted with and is absolutely correct. 6657. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Civil Aeronautics Board. It shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or its decision by the parties. Moreover. Office of the President. therefore.” and “no plain. his interpretation of Sections 1 and 3.  The questioned directive of the herein public respondent is the necessary consequence of the exercise of his arbitral power as Voluntary Arbitrator under Article 261 of the Labor Code "to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. in which the SCruled that "when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final. Board of Investments. Government Service Insurance System. NPEU has not provided this Court any compelling reason why it must disregard the mandate of the Rules of Court. Sanchez.  may issue a writ of execution requiring the sheriff of the Commission or regular Courts or any public official whom the parties may designate in the submission agreement to execute the final decision."  We. this Court took this decision into consideration in approving the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 262-A xxx The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based." Certiorari can not be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Employees Compensation Commission. Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. Indeed. Abarquez (1993) Moreover. in consequence or by reason of the supervening acts of respondent Minister. Davao Integrated v. MOLE (1980) The position of respondent Minister is that assuming the final and executory character of the award in question. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards. Land Registration Authority. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. However. The situation before Us in the instant case has no parity with those obtaining in the As such. Article 261 of the Labor Code is clear. certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. 1979. facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” As previously ruled by this Court: x x x We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when "there is no appeal nor plain. Insurance Commission. Upon motion of any interested party. the interested party may ask to modify or later judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts Held: After mature deliberation. the pertinent provision of which states as follows: SECTION 1. Bureau of Patents. as contended by the Solicitor General in his comment dated August 6. petitioner-company's objection to the authority of the Voluntary Arbitrator to direct the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of intermittent workers in his decision is misplaced. Energy Regulatory Board. and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 135 of 139 . Social Security Commission. the same could still be modified or set aside. final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.  This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which lies only where there is “no appeal. the decisions of a voluntary arbitrator fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

It should be clear to anyone conversant with the elementary principles of collective bargaining and the constitutional injunction assuring the rights of workers thereto (Sec. Bureau of Labor Relations.  Presumably. 9. etc. much less abrogate. they do not seek any judicial pronouncement technically as such:  they are merely asking the arbitrator to fix for them what would be the fair and just condition or term regarding the matter in dispute that should govern further collective bargaining relations between them. 1238-1239) The case of The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. the subsequent or supervening facts referred to by the Solicitor General consisting of acts of none other than the respondent Minister may not be invoked to alter. Inc. 442 F.  Stated differently. immovable and immutable like the rock of Gibraltar. We hold that regardless of any law anterior or posterior to the Arbitrator's award. executory and unappealable.  We might say that the prohibition in the Constitution's Bill of Rights against the passage or promulgation of any law impairing the obligation of contracts applies with perhaps greater force to collective bargaining agreements. bonuses. 1988. as in the case at bar.. It is true that the present rule makes the voluntary arbitration award final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Article 11. (Sec. this Court held that the Voluntary Arbitrator lost jurisdiction over the case submitted to him the moment he rendered his decision.  RA 6715. reform. overtime pay. a fact he was well aware of. supra 7. being procedural. FINALITY AND EXECUTION OF AWARDS Imperial Textile Miles. etc. Article II. respondent arbitrator exceeded his authority as such. R.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations instances where this Court sanctioned departure from the terms of a final and executory judgment by reason of supervening events that would make literal execution in whole or in part of such judgment unjust and inequitable. holiday pay. which We are fully convinced is most consistent with the principles of collective bargaining. when the law in force was Article 263 of the Labor Code.) The award of the arbitrator in this case is not to be equated with a judicial decision. 1989. To do otherwise would violate the prescription of the Constitution against impairment of the obligation of contracts. the parties submit their differences to arbitration. as shown by his previous Resolution of Inhibition wherein he refused to act on the Union's motion for reconsideration of the award or decision. the collective bargaining agreement in this case has been correspondingly amended in a manner that is unalterable. The philosophy underlying this rule was explained by Judge Freedman in the case of La Vale Plaza. the decision may still be reconsidered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the basis of a motion for reconsideration duly filed during that period. interest or policy.. which necessarily include the amount of wages. which introduced amended Article 262-A of the Labor Code became effective on March 11. Washington Post Co. 9. which provided that: Voluntary  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 136 of 139 . Therefore. when in relation to a controversy as to working conditions. Saornido. The first decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator was rendered on July 12. (Washington-Baltimore N. thus:  It is an equally fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award.  However. so to speak. because of the potential evil of outside communication and unilateral influence which might affect a new conclusion. of the collective bargaining inserted by virtue of the award of the arbitrator. although even here the vast increase in the arbitration of labor disputes has created the office of the specialized provisional arbitrator.. they expressly agreed that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator would be final. the new terms.. In effect. modify.. Noonan. In fact. Calica (1992) When the parties submitted their grievance to arbitration. Viewed in this sense. 35 v. Loc. to re-examine a final decision which he has already rendered. Inc. he could no longer entertain a motion for reconsideration of the decision for its reversal or modification. See: Ludo and Luym v.S. Constitution of the Philippines) that the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement constitute the sacred law between the parties as long as they do not contravene public order. The policy which lies behind this is an unwillingness to permit one who is not a judicial officer and who acts informally and sporadically. the arbitrator's award when stipulated by the parties to be conclusive becomes part and parcel of the CBA.G. the first decision had already become so by virtue of Article 263 of the Labor Code making voluntary arbitration awards or decisions final and executory. his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration. Thus:  By modifying the original award. may be applied retroactively to pending actions as have herein a number cases. during the lifetime of the said collective bargaining agreement. even without this stipulation. The continuity of judicial office and the tradition which surround judicial conduct is lacking in the isolated activity of an arbitrator. et al. considering that these deal with the rights and interests of labor to which the charter explicitly affords protection. Such a provision. pp. 2d 1234 (19711. it cannot b e applied to a case in which the decision had become final before the new provision took effect. allowances. v.

Republic Act No. Medicare and maternity benefits. awards. 9 of BP Blg. more often than not. in effect equating the voluntary arbitrator with the NLRC or the Court of Appeals. et al. Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original jurisdiction of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. v. as amended by RA 7902. decisions. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 137 of 139 . or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions. exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations. et al. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code. but only upon agreement of the parties. 6. whether acting solely or in a panel.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations arbitration awards or decisions shall be final. this is illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon it.. instrumentalities. Assoc of Luzon Dev’t Employees (1995) In the Philippine context. We have held.  In the view of the Court. moral. provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise: (B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments. all other claims. Claims for actual. The above-quoted provision did not expressly fix the time when the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision or award would become final. Social Security. including those of persons in domestic or household service. 4. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. this Court ruled that "a voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement."  while the "decision. resolutions. a labor arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code has jurisdiction over the following enumerated cases: "x x x. Sec. 442. et al. The state of our present law relating to voluntary arbitration provides that "the award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator x x x shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights of parties. on the settled premise that the judgments of courts and awards of quasijudicial agencies must become final at some definite time. within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension. hence. 5. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. Article 262 authorizes them. including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts. elevated to the Supreme Court itself on a petition for certiorari. parties to a CBA shall name and designate therein a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. and executory. enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of. it follows that the voluntary arbitrator. the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission.(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide. preferably from those accredited by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. having been rendered in violation of law.  In Volkschel Labor Union. and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. or include a procedure for their selection. those cases that workers may file involving wages. 129. or orders. rates of pay. unappealable. whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. On the other hand. while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter. 1988. and apart from. orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial agencies. Corollarily his second decision dated December 14. Termination disputes. even in the absence of stenographic notes. v. Unfair labor practice cases. the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator. must be considered null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. The public respondent exceeded his authority when he acted on the Union's motion for consideration and reversed his original decision."  Hence. 3. APPEAL Luzon Development Bank v. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. the provisions of this Act. as amended. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. Except claims for Employees Compensation. to exercise jurisdiction over other labor disputes. awards. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. subject only to judicial review in appropriate cases. the parties to a CBA are required to include therein provisions for a machinery for the resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA or company personnel policies. however.000. NLRC et al.  In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW). Romero. boards or commissions. Yet. For this purpose. arising from employeremployee relations. the following cases involving all workers.   8. that it would assume the attribute of finality upon its issuance. past practice shows that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is. 2. involving an amount exceeding It will thus be noted that the Jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC for that matter."  Under these rulings. five thousand pesos (P5.

The foregoing is an acknowledgment by both parties that the proceedings before the Voluntary Arbitrator have not been completed. the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed resolution ordering the immediate execution of the award of separation pay and attorney’s fees. Annex A of the petition.  In the same vein. which is the forerunner of the present Revised Administrative Circular No. therefore.  Despite this. petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of separation pay in favor of private respondent workers. 1-9 1. or if none be specified.P. As a matter of policy. Cristina Dino and Michael Dino can be held liable for the claims of complainants. still both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality. also known as the Arbitration Law. Circular No. This is plainly evident from the Stipulation entered into by the parties and submitted to the Court of Appeals. in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 129.  The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec.  An "Instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasi-judicial agency.  The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls. and this was later adopted by Republic Act No. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein. considering that the respondent court was not in possession of the records and evidence that would support its ruling. Consequently. apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated. boards and commissions enumerated therein. (3) Whether or not complainants are entitled to separation pay. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasijudicial entities18 not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. at any time within one (1) month after an award is made. in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision. the cases within the adjudicative competence of the voluntary arbitrator are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC or the labor arbiter. as well as the subsequent arbitrator/arbitral tribunal operating under the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. just like those of the quasijudicial agencies. although the Employees Compensation Commission is also provided for in the Labor Code. if so. Thus. Unicraft Industries Int’l v. this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition. it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. which pertinently states: b) The case will be referred back to Voluntary Arbitrator Calipay so that petitioners will be granted their day in court to prove their case. 7902 in amending Sec. the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals. It is at once clear from the records that petitioners were not able to present evidence before the Voluntary Arbitrator. modified or corrected. the terms governmental "agency" or instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts.  Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that decisions of the NLRC be reviewable directly by the Supreme Court since. laid down the procedure for the appealability of its decisions to the Court of Appeals under the foregoing rationalization. within the contemplation of the term instrumentality" in Sec. amd (4) Whether or not Robert Dino. 1-95. A fortiori. o It will be noted that.  Prior to that.19 In effect. whether or not their dismissals were valid. 9 of B. 9 of B. that the broader term "Instrumentalities" was purposely included in the above-quoted provision. precisely. While under the UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 138 of 139 . Voluntary Arbitrator Calipay filed a comment contending that he had lost jurisdiction over the case after he rendered judgment. board or commission. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. 1-95. or in which the arbitration is held. money claims. and consistent with. the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. 9 of BP 129. shall have jurisdiction. (2) Whether or not complainants were dismissed. or by which a certain government act or function is performed."  It may even be stated that it was to meet the very situation presented by the quasi judicial functions of the voluntary arbitrators here. the original purpose of Circular No. A party to the controversy may. arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission. This would be in furtherance of.P. the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business. this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. CA (2001) More specifically. attorney’s fees and litigation costs specified in the decision. 876. the hearing thereat to treat the following issues: (1) Whether or not the complainants mentioned in Exhibit J of the Decision really filed their complaints before the NLRC.

Such an action can only result in public mistrust of our entire legal system. He must treat all significant aspects of the proceedings as confidential in nature unless confidentiality is waived by the parties. and we strongly remind the NLRC of their duty to uphold an inspire confidence in the same. He must render a ruling of the issue/s raised in the course of the proceedings. Nature of the case b. committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the immediate execution of the Voluntary Arbitrator’s award of separation pay and attorney’s fees. For a tribunal such as the NLRC to wantonly disregard the employer’s constitutional right to be heard is a matter that cause great concern to the Court. it in no way implies that the employer is not entitled to due process.In the conduct of hearing. xxx Inspite of statutory provisions making “final” the decisions of certain administrative agencies. the arbitrator shall provide the parties adequate opportunities to be heard. or erroneous interpretation of the law where brought to our attention. grave abuse of discretion. however. whether shouldered wholly by the parties or subsidized by the special voluntary arbitration fund. The Court of Appeals. explicitly mandates voluntary arbitrators to observe the requirements of procedural due process:  Section 6. shall take into account the following factors: a. He shall control the proceedings and see to it that proper decorum is observed. thus. notwithstanding that the same was null and void for violation of petitioner’s right to due process of law. viz:  While the intendment of our laws is to favor the employee. there is a need to remand the case to the Voluntary Arbitrator.— The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall provide therein a proportionate sharing scheme on the cost of the voluntary arbitration including the Voluntary Arbitrators fee. Even the Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations law decisions of voluntary arbitrators are accorded finality. Cost of Voluntary Arbitration and Voluntary Arbitrators fee. 9. Professional Standing of the Voluntary Arbitrator Capacity to Pay of the parties. violation of due process. The right of due process is fundamental in our legal system and we adhere to this principle not for reasons of convenience or merely to comply with technical formalities but because of a strong conviction that every man must have his day in court. in Rule VI. Therefore. That finding of the Voluntary Arbitrator. COSTS Art. Time consumed in hearing the case c. we have taken cognizance of petitions questioning these decisions where want of jurisdiction. as originally stipulated by the parties. At this juncture. the same may still be subject to review. to allow petitioners to present evidence in their behalf. denial of substantive justice. The fixing of the fee of the Voluntary Arbitrators. it may not be amiss to restate our previous reminder to labor tribunals in the weighing of the rights and interest of employers and employees. Arbitration Hearing. --. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 139 of 139 . such as here where there was a violation of petitioners’ right to due process and to be heard. 262-B. Section 6 thereof. It bears stressing that the award of separation pay carries with it the inevitable conclusion that complainants were illegally dismissed. was premature and null and void for the reasons above-stated.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->