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

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. and outside of the statute. DO No. for the above purpose. 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.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations 2. Section 2. 40-03 RULE XX LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Art. But if they fail. protect and enforce. 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. Subject to the provisions of Article 241. Special fund for labor education and research. union dues. c. Inciong (1988) This is a matter of responsibility and of answerability.The Department shall develop. maintain a special fund for labor education and research. Labor education of workers and employees. 3. As a strike is an economic weapon at war with the policy of the Constitution and the law at that time. strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings. a resort thereto by laborers shall be deemed to be a choice of remedy peculiarly their own. mutual death and hospitalization benefits. but would subvert. the law will not stand in their way in the enjoyment of the lawful fruits of their victory. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument » For the enhancement of democracy and » The promotion of social justice and development. The labor organization may also periodically assess and collect reasonable amounts from its members for such funds. of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated. 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. would foment anarchy which is a prelude to chaos. 211e “To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes. The important distinction between them. it shall be mandatory for every legitimate labor organization to conduct seminars and similar activities on existing labor laws. that procedure would be advantageous to the aggrieved party on this reasoning: UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 4 of 139 . in whole or in part. NLRC (1998) The Court is. (As amended by RA 6715) Victoria V. the intention of Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. Martin Funeral Homes V. Incidentally.” St. however. On the contrary. 211 (d) To promote the enlightenment of workers  concerning their rights and obligations  As union members and  As employees. 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. therefore. . 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. 211 b. 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. WORKER ENLIGHTENMENT ART. 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. Every legitimate labor organization shall. TRADE UNIONISM Section 1. collective agreements. ART 277 Miscellaneous provisions. 4. 23 whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are allowed would not subserve. by all means. company rules and regulations and other relevant matters. If they succeed and the employer succumbs. the strikers must accept all the risks attendant upon their choice. Petitioner as a union leader. assessments and fines and other contributions for labor education and research. welfare fund. The union seminars and similar activities may be conducted independently of or in cooperation with the Department and other labor education institutions. 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. Existing strike funds may. and as such. be transformed into labor education and research funds. Mandatory conduct of seminars. To foster the free and voluntary organization of » a strong and united labor movement. as he commendably and realistically emphasized. promote and implement appropriate labor education and research programs on the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers. 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. Section 3. MACHINERY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ART. 1495. — (a) All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees.

.” DO No. all references in the amended Section 9 of B. management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action. Desirable industrial practices which have been developed through collective bargaining for settling differences. The relevance of labor laws and labor relations to national development. with the agreement of labor organizations and employers. modified or reversed.— The Secretary of Labor shall have the power and it shall be his duty to inquire into: a. The possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of labormanagement cooperation. In treating the latter. may assist in the formulation and development of programs and projects on productivity. 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. d. Creation of labor-management and other councils. Conduct awareness campaigns. the workers' representatives to the council shall be nominated by the exclusive bargaining representative. 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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 5 of 139 . g. The methods which have been tried by employers and associations of employees for maintaining mutually satisfactorily relations. among others. The growth of associations of employees and the effect of such associations upon employer-employee relations. Under such guarantee. insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights. In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists. upon its own initiative or upon the request of both parties. a line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the employees. b. Section 2. product quality improvement. Assist the parties in setting up labormanagement structures.In organized establishments. the following services: a. and other similar scheme. The existing relations between employers and employees in the Philippines. Consequently. c. President. 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 possibilities for the adoption of practical and effective methods of labormanagement cooperation. 211 (g) “To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights. 277 (g) “The ministry shall help promote and gradually develop. working conditions. therefore. NLRC (1993) Verily. The Department shall promote other labormanagement cooperation schemes and. the Department shall render. c. e. b. occupational safety and health. h. functions and procedures. 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. PAL asserts that all its Art. f. 40-03 RULE XXI LABOR-MANAGEMENT AND OTHER COUNCILS Section 1. and i. 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.P. Monitor the activities of labor-management structures as may be necessary and conduct studies on best practices aimed at promoting harmonious labor-management relations. the workers representative shall be elected directly by the employees at large. and the quality of working life.” Art 273 STUDY OF LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS. 5. In line with the foregoing. 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. and welfare. . The extent and results of the methods of collective bargaining in the determination of terms and conditions of employment. INDUSTRIAL PEACE 6. Mr. 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. 211 (f) “To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace. No.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. and d. Provide process facilitators upon request of the parties. Art. 24 Therefore. duties. be dismissed outright by minute resolutions. A perusal of the records will reveal appeals which are factual in nature and may. PAL V.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations On the other hand. Any other aspects of employer-employee relations concerning the promotion of harmony and understanding between the parties. except those which are covered by collective bargaining agreements or are traditional areas of bargaining. improvement of quality of work life. Selection of representatives. WORKERS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING Art. benefits and welfare.

of course. This was. . the minimum wage rates shall be adjusted in fair and equitable manner. 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. 263g – this article refers to strikes in industries indispensable to the national interest and compulsory arbitration. Public respondents found to the contrary. (See Code)  Art. unhampered as far as possible by judicial UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 6 of 139 . as employees. rates of pay.” EXCEPTIONS:  Art. any strike or lockout involving banks. which finding. An injunction may be issued by the NLRC. Strikes and Lockouts. 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. v. LABOR INJUNCTION Art. Manila Electric Co. 8. 218 e – This article talks about the substantial and procedural rights from issuing an injunction. Contracting out of services is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. » However. 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. While such "obligation" was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated.Part I : Definitions and Policies Labor Relations employees have been furnished copies of the Code (Company Personnel Policies). 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. No court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages. except as otherwise provided by this Code.” Example of “otherwise provided by this Code”: i) Strikes in industries indispensable to the national interest—Compulsory Arbitration. Thus. industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. and in treating the latter. » 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. amplified by RA 6715 when it decreed the "participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights. 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. 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. V. 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. even before Article 211 was amended by RA. . Section 22. considering existing regional disparities in the cost of living and their socio-economic factors and the national economic and social development plans. hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment. Indeed. The State shall promote collective bargaining as the primary mode of settling wages and other terms and conditions of employment. Absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner. This provision allows the Secretary of Labor or the President to interfere by assuming jurisdiction or certifying the case to the NLRC. CIR (1972) 1) It is well known that the scheme in Republic Act No. (See Code) ii) Fixing of minimum wage Art." PAL's position that it cannot be saddled with the "obligation" of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code. RA 6715 had not yet been enacted. » notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary. to say the least is entitled to great respect. 264 – This provision talks about the prohibited activities in a strike. cannot thus be sustained. and whenever necessary. The banking industry is hereby declared as indispensable to the national interest and. 6715. 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. expansion and growth. except as otherwise provided in Article 218 and 264 of this Code. WAGE FIXING Sec. it was already declared a policy of the State to promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . (See Code)  RA8791. Rationale for prohibition: Caltex Filipino Mgrs & Supervisors Assoc. Art. 7. duties and welfare. Quisumbing (2000) A line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of employees. lock-out or picket which may be enjoined by an injunction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers--It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. its officers. 242 paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. provided it is the representative of the employees. c. 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. dominate. 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. To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with. Art. only the officers and agents of corporations. 265 of this Code. 288 Penalties— Except as otherwise provided in this Code.06 SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHT Art.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. f. b. associations or partnerships who have actually participated in. subject to the provisions of Art. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Art. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. 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 . or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. i. coerce. discriminate against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-organization. However. 246 Non-abridgment of the right to self-organization— It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain. or To violate a collective bargaining agreement. To initiate. discharge. Art. that the individual authorization required under Art. d. 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. including . To interfere with. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations 2. g. for services which are not performed or not to be performed. to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. h. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.5 c. I the nature of an exaction. b. To dismiss. members of governing boards representatives or agents or members of labor organizations who have actually participated in. to violate the duty. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. 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. Such right shall include the right to form. 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.discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or . e. 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. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement: Provided. to cause or attempt to cause and employer to discriminate against an employee. or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code. 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. 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. f. agents or representatives: a. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organization--It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. or to violate a collective bargaining agreement. d.6 e. ONLY the officers. To discriminate in regard to wages.

V. then the unions themselves must be sufficiently strong and stable to be able to fulfill effectively their assigned role in society.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.Part II : Right to Self -Organization Labor Relations question of interpretation or implementation of ambiguous provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement. 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.  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. partnership. 3.02 LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. 212 (f) Employee includes any person in the employ of an employer. duties and welfare. or imprisonment of not less that three months nor more than three years. 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.  In addition to such penalty. 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. association or any other entity the penalty shall be imposed upon the GUILTY officer or officers of such corporation. LABOR ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION LABOR ORGANIZATION Composition: Employees Purpose: collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. 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.00 nor more than P10. trust. (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.000.000. firm. firm. 289 Who are liable when committed by other than natural person--If the offense is committed by a corporation.00. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 16 of 139 . Art. association or entity. trust. Part III : LABOR ORGANIZATIONS 3. partnership. or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. 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. any alien found guilty shall be summarily deported upon completion of service of sentence. it is composed of two parts: 1. COMPOSITION: EMPLOYEES Art. Art.

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

9 which was promulgated on 1997.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations possession and exercise of which. and 2. See footnotes for pertinent provisions. RATIONALE: The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. The rationale for requiring that the submitted documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer. No. the constitution and by-laws and list of officers submitted to the BLR. 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. b. 212 h) such local or chapter becomes a legitimate labor organization upon compliance with the aforementioned provisions of Section 3 (Under DO. as the case may be. the local or chapter does not become a legitimate labor organization. were not certified under oath by the secretary. 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. RATIONALE: Undoubtedly. Upon the approval of the application for registration. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will in a marked degree allay these apprehensions of management. registration is required.  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. Relevant portions are as follows: (Take note this part of the case is no longer seen in the amendments in the rules by DO. and attested to by the president is apparent. constitution and By-laws. but the applicable rules now are DO No. 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. No. c. 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.O. there is greater reason to exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements. its is now Rule IV Book V section 1 & section 3)  What requirements imposed by Art. 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. 9. 40-03 series of 2003. a. principal address of the labor organization the minutes of the organizational meetings. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 18 of 139 . 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. while attested to by the chapter’s president. 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. these requirement were present in DO. The provisions governing UNION AFFILIATION are found in Rule II. BUT when an UNREGISTERED union becomes a branch. ii) The submission of officers’ addresses. Section 3. but only in the implementing rules. 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. 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. Such requirement is valid exercise of police power because the activities in which Los are engaged in affect public interest which should be protected. 9. one which has not submitted false statements and misrepresentation to the BLR. In the case at bar. legitimacy to the local or chapter? YES. Book V. By force of law (Art. the LO acquires legal personality and thereby becomes entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the law to a legit L. 2) An independently registered union may also be an affiliate of a federation or national union. the requirements in A 235 regarding certification under oath still has to be complied with. The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures against the commission of fraud. some of the aforementioned requirements for registration are no longer required. Since there are lesser requirements for a local or a chapter. Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements. The employer would naturally need assurance that it is dealing with a bonafide organization. Although there are few requirements . local or chapter of a federation. Implicit in the forgoing differentiation is the fact that a local or chapter need NOT BE independently registered. It is a fatal defect. MAIN QUESTION of the case: When does a branch. charter certificate within 30 days from its issuance by the national union.

namely the promotion of social justice “to insure the well being and econmic security of the people…” It is then the individual employee. Difference of an oath from an attestation is that in an oath.” xxx That is to carry out the purpose implicit in one of the five declared principles. 9 clearly states — SEC. Guijarno v. or as a means to subvert valid commitments.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. a local or chapter need not be independently registered to acquire legal personality. may. who must be attended to. This is categorically prescribed by Section 5. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employer may. through concerted effort and activity achieve the goal of economic well-being.— 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. Workers unorganized are weak. But if it is made use of as a subterfuge. 3. with his problems and his needs. by concerted effort. it is nothing but the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. 5. Laguna Autoparts etc. The issuance of the certificate of registration evidently shows that FEU-IND has complied with the requirements of Art. CIR (1973) The state has an obligation to “afford protection to labor. the BLR. While an attestation merely means that you have witnessed the fact of it. 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. not a fatal defect. Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V. 3. That is why it is given personality and recognition in concluding CBAs. 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. Acquisition of legal personality by local/chapter. 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. 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 pronouncement of the Labor Relations Division Chief. to raise the issue of the respondent union’s legal personality is not proper in this case. Sec3. Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of Book V. Statement of the set of officers 3. Effect of registration. cannot be challenged in a petition for certification election.O. you are in effect saying that all that is contained therein is true and it makes you liable for perjury. finite human being. 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. What is required to be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer and attested to by the local’s president are: 1. He is the beneficiary of the concerns thus made manifest by the fundamental law. V. RATIONALE: Where does that leave a labor union? Correctly understood. personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. 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. as the case may be. Furusawa v. The records of the case show that the respondent union submitted the said documents to Regional Office No. that the respondent union acquired a legal personality with the submission of the complete documentary requirement.It is the instrumentality by which the weak laborer up against the strong employer. for it tends to undermine the harmonious relations between management and labor.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations In case at bar. as amended by D. 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 . Certification proceeding is non-adversarial. achieve economic well-being. 234 of the Labor Code. That is the raison d’être of labor unions. Inc. workers organized are strong. the “constitution’s and by-laws 2. No. 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. as a separate. which states as follows: SEC. A charter certificate need NOT be certified under oath. Unions are merely instrumentalities through which their welfare may be protected and fostered. v.[21] Hence. DOLE Secretary (2005) Indeed. it defeats its own purpose.— 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. the failure of the secretary of PDEU-Kilusan to certify the required documents under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a legitimate status. San Miguel Foods. union officers entered into a compromise concerning backwages of As gleaned from the said provision. technical rules do not apply.

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

Sec. (e) To SUE AND BE SUED in its registered name. local and foreign. and (f) To undertake ALL activities designed to benefit the organization and its members including cooperative. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated. may be permitted to intervene in a case. having been conducted and completed. 242 A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: (a) To acts as the REPRESENTATIVE of its members for the purpose of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. for the use and benefit of the labor organization and its members. provided for in sec 3 of CA 213. 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. duties and other assessments.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. or within 60 calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 21 of 139 . 236 Denial of registration. or during the collective bargaining negotiation. which are actually.** (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. Acedera vs. While a party acting in a representative capacity. 3. shall be free from taxes. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA.** (c) (c) To be furnished by the employer. the investigation to be conducted by him. within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request. Sugbuanon Rural Bank. RIGHTS OF ORGANIZATION LEGITIMATE LABOR bargaining agreement. housing welfare and other projects not contrary to law. (d) To OWN PROPERTY. including the balance sheets and the profit and loss statement. real or personal. ordinarily. aims. 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. Purposes. gifts. 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." the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiter's Office so expressly states. 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. directly and exclusively used for their lawful purposes. Protection Technology v. endowments. as required by law. Int’l Container Terminal Services. donations and contributions they may receive from fraternal and similar organizations.” which is the only ground or reason for refusing the registration and permission to operate as a legitimate labor organization. Art. Vassar Industries EEs Union v Estrella (1951) As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registration. It is the duty of the respondent to register the application and issue the permit upon payment of required fee. Inc. Art. The exemption provided herein may be withdrawn only by a special law expressly repealing this provision. 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. upon written request with the ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. v.Inc. 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. the income and the properties of a legitimate labor organization. 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. including grants. (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. as may be inferred from his official statements in connection therewith. such as a union. 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. 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.

 Nor was it filed by TUCP. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 22 of 139 . c. Who may file. 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. The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of registration of labor organizations: (a) Misrepresentation.in connection w/ the election of officers. Failure to submit the annual financial report to the bureau within 30 days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation. minutes of the election of officers. a legitimate labor organization. – Any party-in-interest may commence a petition for cancellation of registration. place and purpose of such payment.in connection with the adoption or ratification of the consti and by-laws or amendments thereto. the minutes of ratification. i. 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. which can only be commenced by members of the labor organization concerned.  It was not filed by ALU. RULE XIV: CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Section 1. g. the registration of: 1) Any legitimate independent labor union. and by-laws or amendments thereto. Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within 30 days from adoption and ratification of const. Section 3. Failure to submit list of individual members to the bureau once a year or whenever required by the bureau. it is our view that respondent union is a legitimate labor union. 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. 234. which shall state the date. 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. the list of members who took part in the ratification b. Asking for or accepting atty. Petitioner argues that giving due course to respondent union's petition for certification election would violate the separation of unions doctrine. 4. A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger national federation. false statements or fraud .  Note that the petition was filed by APSOTEU-TUCP. 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.  except in actions involving violations of Article 241. false statement or fraud .  The list of members. e. Upon the filing of an independent complaint or petition for cancellation. chartered local and workers' association may be cancelled by the Regional Director. The records show nothing to this effect. Section 2. Misrepresentation. d. Where to file. or 2) In the case of federations. Art. national or industry unions and trade union centers. Misrepresentation. false statement or fraud in connection with:  The Adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. (as amended by Sec 16. 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. h. the minutes of ratification. – Subject to the requirements of notice and due process. Art 241 (j) Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source. and Failure to comply with requirements under Art 237 & 238. f. Petitioner says that respondent union is a mere alter ego of ALU. who took part in the ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations Having complied with the requirements of Art. false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself. 1: (g) "Cancellation Proceedings" refer to the legal process leading to the revocation of the legitimate status of a union or workers' association. which is a national labor federation of with which respondent union is affiliated. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the org. What the records instead reveal is that respondent union was initially assisted by ALU during its preliminary stages of organization.  The minutes of ratification. and by-laws or amendments thereto. j. Grounds for cancellation. 40-03 series of 2003 Rule I Sec. and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made. by the Bureau Director.’s fees or negotiation fees from Ers. RA 6715) DO No. the list of members who took part in the ratification of the const. 239 Grounds for cancellation of union registration—the following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: a.

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

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." The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. negotiation and admin of collective bargaining agreements. other activities or actions analogous to foregoing. 5. teach-ins.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed. directly or indirectly. should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. 3. 269 Prohibition against aliens. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V. o Provided. in cash or in kind. further. 241 UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 24 of 139 .06 UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS Art. That being so. 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.05 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION – PROHIBITION AND REGULATION Art. grants. including the mandatory reporting of the amounts of the donations or grants the specific recipients thereof. union elections. 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. That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. seminars. or other forms of assistance. in cash or in kind. organizing. rallies. formation and administration of labor orgs. credit unions and institutions engaged in research. organization. 5. it loses — as a rule — its rights under the Labor Code. Such legal personality cannot thereafter be subject to collateral attack.— (a) No foreign individual. managing. 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. For without such registration. That in appropriate cases the Sec of Agrarian Reform shall exercise the powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in the Sec of Labor. “Trade union activities” shall mean: 4. however. rural workers. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. Art. A decision rendered without any hearing is null and void. group of workers or any auxiliary thereof. representation elections. COLLATERAL ATTACK Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club.(2003) After a certificate of registration is issued to a union. but may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with these Rules. conferences and institutes. given directly or indirectly to any Eer(s) org to support any activity or activities affecting trade unions. and the like: Provided. any donations.  without prior permission by the Sec of Labor. 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. the said exhibits cannot be made use of in deciding the case. such as cooperatives. all forms of concerted union action. and their duration. Inc. or assisting union conventions. 270 Regulation of foreign assistance. exceptions—All aliens. its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. any form of participation or involvement in representation proceedings. 6. in relation to trade union activities. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union. o may exercise the right to self-org and join or assist labor orgs of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. (b) This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations. That aliens working in the country with valid PERMITS issued by the Dept of Labor and Employment. meetings. 7. grants or other forms of assistance. vs. consent elections. (c) The Sec of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the giving and receiving of such donations. Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code" (Implementing Rules) which section reads: Sec. referenda.  Provided. grants or other forms of assistance. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. Art. Effect of registration. The union. org or entity may give The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation. the projects or activities proposed to be supported. natural or juridical. to any labor org. education or communication. having been validly issued a certificate of registration. 8. and 9. 5.

( as amended by Sec 16. C. moneys and other properties of the org. dues. No officer. custody or control of the funds. to which they or their union is affiliated. 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. excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed. by secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. agent or member of a labor org shall collect any fees. which shall state the date. further. after due deliberation. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of a legit labor org nor shall arbitrary. E. 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. or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its const. and 3. That this provision shall apply only to a legit labor org which has submitted the financial report requirements under this Code. I. whichever comes earlier: Provided. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 25 of 139 . and of all bonds. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the 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 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. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor org. The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Sec of Labor. disbursement. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the org. Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source. 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. Every payment of fees. H. RA 6715) D. L. 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. 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. securities and other properties of the org entrusted to his custody or under his control. K. 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. Upon vacating his office.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. The rendering of such account shall be made: 1. The members shall determine by secret ballot. F. 2. J. 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. The secretary or any other responsible union officer shall furnish the Sec of Labor and Employment with a list of the newlyelected officers. management. including those of the national union or federation. B. ****(Isn’t this in conflict with second part of letter C) G. 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. and by-laws. Provided. 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. At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of the org. any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the org. M. place and purpose of such payment. The members shall directly elect their officers. 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. At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the close of its fiscal year. unless the nature of the org or force majeure renders such secret ballot impractical.: A. (as amended by Sec 16. or written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose. in which case the board of dir of the org may make the decision in behalf of the general membership. and by-laws. and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made. The treasurer of any labor org and every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such org or for the collection.

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

In this case. OF ELECTION. When members of a labor union sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union. UST Faculty v.  by secret ballot  at intervals of five (5) years. RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE Villar v Inciong (1983) When a labor union affiliates with a mother union. 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. Case remanded. 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. it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization. When they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong. 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. to which they or their union is affiliated. ELECTION OF OFFICERS---QUALIFICATIONS. Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for impeachment or expulsion from the org. as he was subject to humiliation and mental anguish with the consequent loss of his good name and reputation. 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. only members of the union can participate in the election of union officers. They forfeit their rights to remain as members. They must be considered ipso facto members. DUE PROCESS RULES Bugay v Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Manila Railrd (1962) The union claims that he cannot claim such. The constitution. by-laws and rules of the parent body. there being indication of bad faith on the part of its officers. Interval of 5 years TENURE: 5 years COMPENSATION: Generally none. or a written resolution by a majority of all the union members in a general membership meeting called for that purpose. through secret ballot. Bugay was NOT present in ANY of the investigations. (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. Direct election. their act of joining the election by casting their votes is a clear manifestation of their intention to join the union. constitute an enforceable contract between the parent body and the subordinate union. which is the process of determining. 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. A union election should be distinguished from a certification election. QUALIFICATON: Member in good standing Not convicted of crime of moral turpitude MANNER OF ELECTION: Secret Ballot. No qualification requirements for candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in good standing in subject labor org. after proper investigation and finding of guilt. including those of the national union or federation. The Court rules otherwise. 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. TENURE AND COMPENSATION Art 241 (c) The members shall directly elect their officers. as the findings were based solely on procedural defects.( as amended by Sec 16. the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. it decided to remove the oppositors from the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU. Case remanded. Bugay was charged by union officers of disloyalty and was terminated from union membership. for purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union functions. together with the charter it issues pursuant thereto to the subordinate union. 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. PAFLU acted when. 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.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. 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. Under Article 242. They failed to give notice or to summons Bugay. And yet the investigations pushed through. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 27 of 139 . or written resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting duly called for the purpose.

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

–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. 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. 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 .Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations state the date. Duyag et al are entitled to the refund of the union dues illegally collected from them. Although the attorney’s fees were a mere incident. The record shall be attested to b the president. Art 274 Visitorial Power. Manalad. Thus. 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. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. SOURCE – PAYMENT – ATTORNEY’S FEES Art. If they represent their organization or members thereof. it is not union funds. The secretary of the org shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present. o. After hearing and even without submitting the matter to the union members. 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. fixing of the same was outside Presidential executive assistant’s appellate jurisdiction. His organization of a family-owned corporation competing with the union headed by him renders it untenable that he should remain as union president. Any contract. The Director of Labor Relations erred in holding that tenure of union officers. n. custody or control of the funds. 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 purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees. The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor. [Cf. The authorization should specifically state the amount. is a matter outside his Bureau’s jurisdiction and should be passed upon by the union members themselves. the atty. 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. Puerto and Leaño violated the rights and conditions of membership in the union within the meaning of article 242. Furthermore. At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of the organization. RA 6715) l. or 2. atty. 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.’s fees.. m. 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. 2. erring union officials may be removed by the Director of Labor Relations as clearly provided in article 242. securities and other properties of the organization entrusted to his custody or under his control.’s fees should not be deducted from the P14M. management. 222 Appearances and fees---a) Non-lawyers may appear before he Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: 1. however. and of all bonds. The P14M constitutes the money of the Ees. agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. b) No attorney’s fees. Provided. At least once a year within 30 days after the close of its fiscal year. Art. (as amended by Sec 16. Presidential executive assistant had no jurisdiction to make such adjudication on the attorney’s fees. 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. disbursement. but from the existing funds of the union. Provided. Case was appealed to the OPRES with respect to the CBA terms and conditions. moneys and other properties of the organization. There is no doubt that the lawyer is entitled to his fees but Art 222 ordains that such must come from the Union funds. place and purpose of such payment. the votes cast. being a “political question”. The Director should apply the law and not make policy considerations. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the org. no special assessments. The rendering of such account shall be made: 1. and 3. That attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Upon vacating his office. The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is responsible for the account of such organization for the collection.

atty. The resolution was presented to the general membership for ratification at a referendum. It submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is required is a written resolution adopted at the general meeting. negotiations fees and similar charges arising out of the conclusion of a collective bargaining agreement from being imposed on any individual union member. 222 Appearances and Fees. 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. SOURCE – PAYMENT – SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Art. 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. No attorney’s fees. no special assessments. The secretary of the org shall record the minutes of the meeting including the list of all members present. The two other purposes. Secretary of the organization must record the minutes of the meeting which. The dues improperly collected must be refunded.” It is an exaction which falls within the category of a “similar charge. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and the recipient of such assessments or fees. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. and must be obtained in accordance with the steps outlined by law. Calleja (1990) HELD: Deduction of the 10% special assessment by the Union was not made in accordance with the requirements provided by law. Under par (n). Substantial compliance is not enough. 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. o. It must be discontinued. A withdrawal of individual authorizations is equivalent to no authorization at all. The resolution increasing the union dues must be struck down. agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. (o) requires an individual written authorization duly signed by every employee in order that a special assessment may be validly checked-off. or 2. There can be no valid check-off considering that the majority of the union members had already withdrawn their individual authorizations. Sec. BIR (1989) Old union officers increased union dues from P21-P50. Minutes of 3 of those local meetings held were recorded by a union director and not by the union secretary. The minutes contained no list of the members present and no record of the votes cast. Employees’ express consent is required. Documents containing the disauthorizations have the signatures of the union members. Any contract. Of Labor (2000) Art. Par. a. 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. Art.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations that course of action would curtail the so-called union autonomy and freedom from government interference.” and within the coverage of the prohibition. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. The last stated purpose fall under Art. Only the collection of a special fund for labor and education research is mandated. The record shall be attested to b the president. The collection of the special assessment partly for the payment for services rendered by union officers. consultants and others may not be in the category of “attorney’s fees or negotiations fees. Art. arbitrary and oppressive. must include the list of all the members present as well as the votes cast. there being no showing that the latter are not sufficient to cover the same. Palacol v. The authorization should specifically state the amount. purchase of vehicles and other items for the benefit of the union officers and the general membership. However.’s fees. Those who protested boycotted the referendum but nevertheless union officers declared the increase ratified by the referendum. 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. b. 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. 222(b) prohibits attorney’s fees. If they represent themselves. on different dates and at various venues. and the payment of services rendered by union officers should be supported by the regular union dues. UNION DUES Rodriguez v Director. in turn. If they represent their organization or members thereof. Labor officials should be vigilant and watchful in monitoring and checking the administration of union affairs. 241 n. Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: 1. the votes cast. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 30 of 139 . 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. Gabriel v. as illegal and void. 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. Union held local membership meetings on separate occasions. 222(b). Director acted correctly in ordering an examination of the books and records of the union.

Union filed a claim for emergency cost of living allowance and other benefits however. the check-off UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 31 of 139 . 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.000. attorney's fees and representation expenses were met.00. as amended. par (b) of the Labor Code applies only when the payment of attorney's fees is effected through forced contributions from the workers. applies to the case under consideration. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. on special assessments. the Union held its general meeting. other miscellaneous expenses and attorney's fees. holding that the validity of the five percent (5%) special assessment for attorney's fees is contrary to Art. and 2) that no deductions must be taken from the workers who did not sign the checkoff authorization. A mandatory activity has been defined as a judicial process of settling dispute laid down by the law." The inapplicability of Palacol lies in the fact that it has a different factual milieu from the present case. we find that the 3 requisites for the validity of the 10% special assessment for Union's incidental expenses. In this case. This provision envisions a situation where there is a judicial or administrative proceedings for recovery of wages. the petitioners." 85 members of the same Union executed individual written authorizations for check-off. Amicable settlement entered into by the management and the union can not be considered as a mandatory activity. so find. as amended. The authorization should specifically state the amount. 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. 1989. Benjamin Sebastian was instrumental in forging the said agreement on behalf of the union members. 222. However. Allowances are benefits over and above the basic salaries of the employees. In Palacol. Law allows a deduction for attorney’s fees of 10% from the total amount due to a winning party. 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. case never reached its conclusion in view of the parties’ agreement. 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. said Union held its General Membership Meeting. no special assessments. par(b) of the Labor Code. impugned the Order of the NLRC. attys fees. 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. On May 24. the same must be shared by all the members until this is fully liquidated. Such allowances are excluded from the concept of salaries or wages. Penalty of expulsion from the union presidency imposed upon Timbungco is justified. There is then. It can be gleaned that on July 14. 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. P. Pascual the amount of P500. that the ruling in BPIEU-ALU vs. contemplates a general meeting after the conclusion of the CBA.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations 3) Individual written authorization for checkoff duly signed by the employees concerned. 1991. wherein majority of the members agreed that "in as much as the Union had already paid Atty. The court ratiocinated. and ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members V. DEFINITION OF MANDATORY ACTIVITIES: Judicial process of settling disputes laid down by the law. MANDATORY ACTIVITY Art 241(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp (1999) After a thorough review of the records on hand. In BPIEU-ALU. the presumption that such check-off authorizations were executed voluntarily by the signatories thereto. 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. It is not also shown that Atty. 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. 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. And they have never withdraw their individual written authorizations for check-off. authorization was declared invalid because majority of the Union members had withdrawn their individual authorizations. we are of the irresistable conclusion and. Subject Article does not state that the general membership meeting should be called after the conclusion of a CBA. Premises studiedly considered. 222. Petitioners further contend that Article 241 (n) of the Labor Code. The Court explained: And significantly. the majority of the Union members gave their individual written check-off authorizations for the 10% special assessment. Amicable settlements cannot be considered as a mandatory activity. The minutes of the said meeting were recorded by the Union's Secretary and noted by its President. NLRC that 1) the prohibition against attorney's fees in Art.

Benefits awarded to PLDT employees still formed part of the collective bargaining negotiations although placed already under compulsory arbitration. collective bargaining agreement. It is within the power of the NLRC to order the removal of the officers. Their responsibility is greater than that of the members. it shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform its members on provisions of the constitution and by-laws. Visitorial power under Article 274. The strikers did violate the nostrike policy. 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. Actions arising from Article 241. Section 3.  Supported by the written consent of at least twenty (20%) percent of its total membership. pursuant to the Section 5.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. 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. the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. Union had a remedy by applying for a writ of execution to enforce that award. This is not the “mandatory activity” under the Code which dispenses with individual written authorizations for check-offs. misappropriation or non-accounting of funds in violation of Article 241  Shall be treated as an intra-union dispute.A request for examination of books of accounts of independent labor unions. 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. Employees are vigorously objecting. Prescription. . the prevailing labor relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor laws. . UNION INFORMATION Art. Department Order No. 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 required individual authorizations are wanting.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. Article 222 (b) does not except a CBA. Section 4. 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. 241. 242. from the ambit of its prohibition. The issue concerned merely the implementation of an arbitration award of the NLRC. Even assuming not engaged in a vital industry. Officers had the duty to guide their members to respect the law. The officers misinformed the members and led them into staging an illegal strike. In Art. Such request or complaint. they urged them to violate the law and defy the duly constituted authorities. Where to file. Continental Cement Corp Labor Union v. Instead. The union members engaged in a lock-out and strike. collective bargaining agreement.  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. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. 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. It is a judicial process of settling disputes laid down by law. 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. They repeatedly defied the orders of the Director of Labor Relations. Their (the officers) dismissal from the service is a just penalty. . 40-03 Series of 2003 RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM Section 2. the strike was illegal. later placed under compulsory arbitration. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES – PROCEDURE AND SANCTIONS Art. Besides. It shall be heard and resolved  By the Med-Arbiter provisions of Rule XI.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 . Any complaint or petition with allegations of mishandling. in the absence of allegations pertaining to a violation of Article 241. 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.

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

There is nothing in Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union affiliating with a national union loses its legal personality. 3. while the federation is deemed as the be merely an agent. free to serve their own and the common interest of all. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality. The right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. independently of the federation.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations The same is true even if the local is not a legitimate labor organization. therefor. Inc. They are separately and independently registered of each other. The exclusion. Alliance v. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. 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. Tropical Hut v. 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. RATIONALE: De la Salle Med v. neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and Adamson. 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. The national federation would be representing the respective interests of the 2 groups separately. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with their employer. Locals remain the basic units of association. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 34 of 139 . being a separate and voluntary association. A local union maintains its separate personality despite affiliation with a larger national federation. 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 local unions are considered as the principal. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. This right is consistent with the 2. of middle level executives from the category of management employees brought about a third classification. is free to serve the interest of all its mebers including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. Tropical Hut (1990) The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federaton 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. 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. A local union. It only gives rise to a contract fo agency where the former acts in representation of the latter. being a SEPARATE and VOLUNTARY association. A local union. Inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. Association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. Sugbuanon Rural Bank v. 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. 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. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. supervisory employees. have their own respective constitutions and by-laws. Salesmen Association (FFW).. Locals are separate and distinct units primarily designed to secure and maintain an equality of bargaining power between the employer and their employeemembers. What the law prohibits is that supervisory employees join a rank and file union. 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. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. 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. is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. 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.

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

(This means that individual employees may disaffiliate from a union where they belong. Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary of Labor. Effect of pendency of election protest As such. PAFLU through Serafin Ayroso filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against PSI. PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation citing as reason PAFLU's supposed deliberate and habitual dereliction of duty toward its members. those of the former must be preferred. Policy considerations dictate that in weighing the claims of a local union as against those of a national federation. Nonetheless. 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. 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. pending settlement of the controversy. 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. a local labor union affiliated with the PAFLU. 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. It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a CBA with PSEA-NCW. 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. Its rival union. 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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 36 of 139 . Hence. PSEA and their respective officers. May PSEA. to the will of their members. In the CBA a union security clause was agreed upon. this tells us that a local union can disaffiliate from its mother union if a majority of the local union decides to do so.an act they could NOT have done with any effective consequence because they constituted the MINORITY in the amigo employees-union PAFLU. Philippine Skylanders. 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. there could be no legal objections thereto for it was there right to do so. Inc. NLRC (2002) In November 1993 the PSEA.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations RULE – LEGALITY ACT – DISAFFILIATION Villar vs Inciong (1983) Although. this right must respect the terms of the affiliation agreement. PAFLU asked the company to dismiss or terminate all 32 employees. HELD: In the CBA PAFLU has been recognized as the sole bargaining agent for all the employees of the Company. with due recognition of this fact.) Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. local unions do not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but. 32 of the 36 members of the union disaffiliated from PAFLU. should have been dismissed at the first instance for failure to state a cause of action. there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW. Liberty Cotton Mills. (By implication. The mere act of disaffiliation did not divest PSEA of its own personality. In September. we upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations. neither did it give PAFLU the license to act independently of the local union. Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA-NCW. The disaffiliation was valid under the local’s Constitution and By-Laws. acting for and in behalf of its affiliate. PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with (NCW) and to maintain continuity within the organization. Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 92. an affiliate has the right to disaffiliate. the dismissal from employment was unjustified. as a matter of principle. Liberty Cotton Mills (1975) Facts: A CBA was entered into by the company and the union who was represented by PAFLU (mother union). Several months later. Only 4 out of its members remained. The complaint then for unfair labor practice lodged by PAFLU against PSI. Right to disaffiliate In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Inc.5% of the total union membership supported the claim of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized PAFLU from instituting any complaint in their behalf.) 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). v. which is an independent and separate local union. having been filed by a party which has no legal personality to institute the complaint. 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. PAFLU won in the certification election conducted among the rank and file employees of PSI. The PAFLU. As PSEA had validly severed itself from PAFLU. the pendency of an election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation. 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. Had petitioners merely disaffiliated from Amigo Employees Union-Paflu. instead.

 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. 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. NLRC 149 SCRA 470 (1987)) Exception: But even before the onset of the freedom disaffiliation may still be carried out. industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious.01 STATUTORY BASIS Art. Ambulant. NLRC) This happens when there is a substantial shift in allegiance on the part of the majority of the members of the union. CIR (1965) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 37 of 139 . Can be hired even if not union member. 4. medical.  All persons employed in commercial. 248(e) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS  to discriminate in regard to wages. 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.  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. In such a case. (Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. Samahang Generally. 4. (AWU v.Part III : Labor Organizations Labor Relations PERIOD Alliance of Nationalist Union v.02 RATIONALE-EMPLOYEE ACTION Juat v. intermittent and itinerant workers. Right to associate includes right to disassociate. but such disaffiliation must be effected by a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. 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. or educational institutions. employee must become a member Ground for Termination If they employee does not join the union after a reasonable time. Art. charitable. 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. shall have the right to self-organization and to form. whether operating for profit or not. as long as there is no express prohibition in the charter certificate issued by the National union or Federation. 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. rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. join. Will such local lose its legitimate status when it disaffiliates from the mother union? Suggested answer: No. and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. however. EXCEPT those employees who are already members of ANOTHER UNION at the time of signing of the collective bargaining agreement. 243 Coverage and employees’ right to selforganization. or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Continued Employment After some time. hours of work. EXCEPTION: Shift of allegiance of majority. Disini: A local union in a general sense acquires its legitimacy by affiliating with a registered federation or national union.

and a closedshop provision would not justify the employer in discharging. v. Manila Cordage Co. We can not conceive how freedom to contract. Inc. 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 . Rizal Cement Co. 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. 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. 4..04 CONTRACT INTERPRETATION UNION SECURITY DRAFTING AND OF PROVISION– Rizal Labor Union v. without any reasonable ground thereof. because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege.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.. a closed-shop has been allowed. in Victorias Milling Co. (1955) In order for an employer to be bound under a union security clause in the CBA. the stipulation must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave absolutely no room for doubt. either in a given locality. 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. to dismiss an employer for lack of or loss of union membership. The dismissal by virtue thereof cannot constitute an unfair labor practice. or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closedshop agreement. an employee whom he union thus refuses to admit to membership. or a union in insisting upon the discharge of. 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. Justice Labrador. CIR (1973) GENERALLY: a state may NOT compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual. TAKE NOTE: Close shop and union shop provisions are in principle valid and allowed by law. To further increase the effectiveness of labor organizations. The terms of specific union clauses should be construed strictly and doubts should be resolved against their existence. 4. 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.03 VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND Tanduay Distillery Labor Union V. NLRC (1987) This Court speaking thru Mr. In other words. EXCEPTION: The rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor. There must be a provision that union members must be in good standing to keep their job. Consequently. 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. should be subordinated to the constitutional provision protecting the sanctity of contracts. In fact it is said that the closedshop contract is the most prized achievement of unionism. v. 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. 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. it is well settled that such unions are NOT entitled to arbitrarily excluded qualified applicants for membership. (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. Guijarno v. 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. 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. 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.

It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. 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. CIR. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. 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. 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. under the 1935 Constitution. 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.06 IMPLEMENTATION–OBLIGATION & LIABILITIES Carino v. In order that the Manila Cordage Company may be deemed bound to dismiss employees who do not maintain their membership in the Union. Bad faith on the part of respondent company may be gleaned from the fact that the petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily. Even with the conjunctive interpretation. these two provisions can not supplant the omission of said maintenance of membership clause. o accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided. vs. however. is bound to dismiss any employee expelled by PAFLU for disloyalty.05 COVERAGE – WORKER INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION Art. if such non-union members UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 39 of 139 . Inc.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations of the UNION AGREEMENT" for the duration of this The foregoing stipulation. to "afford protection to labor. 248 (e)  To discriminate in regard to wages. especially to working women and minors.. it was guilty of a tortious act. Notwithstanding the Union's Security Clause in the CBA. for which it must assume solidary liability. other benefits and privileges clearly specified therein. this undertaking should not be done hastily and summarily. 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. Guijarno v. We need not stretch our imagination too far to know the difference between or duration of employment from terms and conditions of employment. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. 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.  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. The obligation was imposed on the State. wages. let alone cure the defect of the same. We conclude that the Company had failed to accord to petitioner Cariño the latter's right to procedural due process. in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co. upon its written request. Apparently aware of the deficiency of the maintenance-of-membership clause. paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. that the individual authorization required under Article 242. The right of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his 4. 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. 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. Anakan Lumber Co. the petitioner urges that the same should be construed together with the "Whereas" provision of the contract which reads: "WHEREAS. under the Maintenance of Membership provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. At best." 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. 4. The company acted in bad faith in dismissing petitioner workers without giving them the benefit of a hearing. A year later. Such interpretation would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate that the State shall afford protection to labor. While respondent company. 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. 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 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. NLRC (1990) We believe that the Company should have given petitioner Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of the controversy with the Union.

duly signed by each employee concerned. Hence. for the individual employees. 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. (No need to be under oath) o.  The authorization should specifically state the amount. Art. 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. the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the Union and only indirectly. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body. IMPLICATION: Even if may union security clause. Workers Union v. 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. to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.  the votes cast. In the instant case. Sanyo Phil. recognized as the proper bargaining representative. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code. CHECK-OFF: 1) Ordinary Union dues UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 40 of 139 . 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. purpose and beneficiary of the deduction ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union V. Canizares (1992) In the instant case.’s fees. no special assessments. the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. atty. is not wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a Union Shop Clause in a CBA. The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body.  the purpose of the special assessment or fees and  the recipient of such assessments or fees. in his own behalf or in behalf of any person. 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. agent. due process is still necessary. 241 m. deduct union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages and remit them directly to the union. BAR QUESTION (1997 XI) 5%: Atty. As this Court has acknowledge. 113 b No employer. 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. Facundo Veloso was retained by Welga Labor Union to represent it in the collective bargaining negotiations. ABS-CBN A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer. dues. both the union and the company are united or have come to an agreement regarding the dismissal of private respondents. on agreement with the Union. 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.n. It need not be mentioned that the parties to a CBA are the union and the company. 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. shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees except: for union dues. 2) Extraordinary Fees. or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees. 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. The secretary of the org shall record:  the minutes of the meeting  including the list of all members present. 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. however.o.00 as 4. Veloso would be paid the sum of P20.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations side in a controversy with either the Company or his own Union. on the other hand. See also 241 m.o m. OR on PRIOR authorization from its employees. It is assured thereby of CONTINOUS FUNDING. The record shall be attested to by the president. Since there has already been an actual termination. The statutory limitation on checkoffs are found in Article 241 g : “No officer.07 FINANCIAL SECURITY CHECK-OFF Art. n. but can only be made when authorized by individual written authorization. Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. The grievance machinery with members designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed employees." the jurisdiction of which pertains to the Grievance Machinery or thereafter. It was agreed that Atty. only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. etc. No grievance between them exists which could be brought to a grievance machinery.000.n. The legal basis of check-off is found in statutes or in contracts.

attorney’s fees and representation expenses be valid and upheld: 1. Right of union to collect dues and agency fees. Basis Art. Veloso’s fees and another sum of P100. (Art. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 41 of 139 .40-03 Series of 2003 RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM Section 1. Suggested Answer: (a) The assessment of P100. AGENCY FEE now has a statutory basis Art. 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. for the same reason stated above. After the conclusion of the negotiations.00 from each union member as attorney’s fees – for union negotiation is NOT valid. DO No. Welga Labor Union collected from its individual members the sum of P100. 222 b of the labor code. if such non-union member accepts the benefit under the CBA…” Take note: In the case of agency fee. Individual written authorization for checkoff.00 as negotiation fees charged to each individual union member and payable to union officers is also not valid. individual authorization not applied. . other inter/intra-union disputes or related labor relations disputes. 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. 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. 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. or not required. 248 e. (b) The assessment of P100. because the law recognizes the extreme difficulty of imposing agency fee on non-union members. 3.00 from the individual members of the Welga Laborn Union for services rendered by the union officers in the CBA negotiations was valid.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. 2.00 each for services rendered by the union officers. National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union v. more especially to members of rival unions. This is for practical reasons. Secretary’s record of the meeting.Part IV : Union Security Labor Relations attorney’s fees for his assitance in the CBA negotiations. and (b) Whether or not the assessment of P100. (b) The assessment of P100. Authorization by a written of the majority of all the members at the general meeting for that purpose.00 each to pay for Atty. 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.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.

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

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

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

There is similarity of employment status for all sales personnel. MDLU seems to have conceded that the results would favor separation. the workers in Caloocan require special skills in the operation of heavy equipment. 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. c. control and communication systems indicate their unitary corporate personality. The claim raised by Kapisanan would only be entertained on appeal and only after the CIR has ruled on the matter. Hence. e. 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. 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. Caloocan shops) and those of the others. is not a justification for disregarding their separate personalities. responsibilities. v.. the others do not. GVM and ASDA always hold joint yearly ceremonies such as the "PGA Annual Awards Ceremony". Laguesma (1994) HELD: Prior collective bargaining history is not conclusive or determinative of what constitutes the appropriate bargaining unit. the other units do only minor repairs. compensation and working conditions. All the cross-linking of the three agencies’ command. b. Also. (Remember: this is different from a certification election) Factors which may be considered are history. San Miguel Corp. Employees need not file three separate petitions for certification election. Agencies have common and interlocking incorporators and officers. UNIT SEVERANCE DOCTRINE INDUSTRIAL/CRAFTS UNION Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Road Co. This is keeping with the court’s right to investigate fully in matters concerning certification elections. Mechanical Dep’t Labor Union v CIR (1968) In view of its findings and the history of union representation in the railway company. Those in the Caloocan shops have a community of interests and working conditions. Yard Crew Union (1960) HELD: Because of modern complexities of relations b/w employer & union structure.e. certiorari is not proper. 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 . called the GLOBE DOCTRINE. 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.” MANAGEMENT Phil. It becomes necessary to give considerations of the express desire or will of the Employees. & ASDA) do not exist and operate separately and distinctly from each other with different corporate directions and goals. 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. & ASDA) and only one union (UFW). the GLOBE DOCTRINE properly applies. 2. 1. who are now attached to Georgia Pacific International Corporation. d. the history of CB. PSVSIA. Technically. and ordered a plebiscite held for that purpose. 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. it becomes difficult to determine from the evidence alone which of the several claimant groups forms proper bargaining unit. Plebiscite may be held to determine WON the Employees w/in the dept do want a separate bargaining agent. Since this is an interlocutory order. The test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interest.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations employees of Lianga Bay Logging Co. GVM. They have the same duties. a. f. should not be allowed to vote in the certification election at the Lianga Bay Logging Corporation. Hence. the appeal was premature since the result of the ordered plebiscite may be adverse to the creation of a separate bargaining unit-. Inc. the 236 employees. extent and type of organization of employees. The security agencies are managed through the Utilities Management Corporation with all of their employees drawing their salaries and wages from said entity. v.however. In emergencies. Torres (1993) This case involved three companies (PSVSIA. 2. GVM. 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". Veil of corporate fiction should be lifted for the purpose of allowing the employees of the three agencies to form a single labor union. GVM and ASDA employees have a single Mutual Benefit System and followed a single system of compulsory retirement. The CIR found basic differences b/w those in the Rolling Stocks (i. They should vote at a separate certification election to determine the collective bargaining representative of the employees of Georgia Pacific International Corporation. All of these could be covered in a single petition. etc. They also perform major repairs of railway rolling stock. The securities agencies concerned (PSVSIA. Plebiscite is not to be conducted by the DOLE but by the Court itself. Scouts Veterans v. Inc. PSVSIA.

Monthlies who are rank-and-file have been historically excluded from the bargaining unit composed of daily-paid rank-and-filers. Under the Globe Doctrine. This case does not fall squarely within the exception. The supervisory power of such Employees consists merely in recommending as to what managerial actions to take in disciplinary cases. pilots and stewardesses belong to ONE bargaining unit (unit A) for the purpose of collective bargaining. (3) Neither: They do not want the choices If you have one BIG bargaining unit. Illustration: Unit A (original bargaining unit) : 100 Pilots + 200 Stewardesses = 300 employees Unit B (proposed new unit): Pilots = 100 employees. 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. (2) To vote for Unit B: This would mean that they would want to form their OWN bargaining unit. most probably you are grouping together DIFFERENT SKILLED workers. 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. Rationale of the Globe Doctrine: highly skilled workers have to separate to increase their market value. 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. Sanchez. 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. Those in unit B (100 pilots) will vote in a plebiscite. such identity of interest has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining unit of supervisors-managers for purposes of collective bargaining. EFFECT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT General Rubber & Footwear Corp. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious. 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. SIZE OF UNIT AND EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Filoil Refinery Corp. However. Example given: Case of Pilots and Stewardess. composed of pilots only. They DO NOT FIT into the definition of managerial Employees laid down in Bulletin Publishing Corp v.Part V : Appropriate Bargaining Unit Labor Relations whenever plebiscites had shown the worker’s desire to have their own representatives. 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. SUPERVISOR UNIT Dunlop Slazenger v. 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. they are NOT PROHIBITED from forming a union. will of the employees is the determinative factor. Creating fragmentary units would not serve the interest of industrial peace. Its judgment is entitled to finality. 4. Thus. 3. Action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is discretionary. 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). (1987) HELD: Monthly paid Employees are not managerial. NLRC (1998) Supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. 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. If . 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. v BLR. It is unusual to have to deal with 2 collective bargaining unions but there is no one to blame for creating the situation. which could hardly be accomplished if the respondent association’s membership were to be broken up into five separate ineffective tiny units. 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. General had sought to indiscriminately suppress the members right to self-organization.originally. 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. The GLOBE DOCTRINE usually applies to employees with rare skills or highly technical ones. The breaking up of bargaining units into tiny units will greatly impair their organizational value.

Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees of Dela Salle University. DLSUEA (2000) The University's arguments on the first issue fail to impress us. 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. the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. During the freedom period. subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. 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. With regard to the alleged confidential nature of the said employees' functions. Its UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 47 of 139 . As carefully examined by the Solicitor General. judgment is entitled to finality. the service record of a computer operator reveals that his duties are basically clerical and non-confidential in nature. 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.04 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND UNION MEMBER BARGAINING INDIVIDUAL Art. after a careful consideration of the pleadings filed before this Court. benefits and welfare.03 DETERMINING AGENCY Art. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious. 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. unless its action is arbitrary or capricious and that absent any grave abuse of discretion as to justify the Court’s intervention. 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. we agree with the voluntary arbitrator that based on the nature of their duties. However. they are not confidential employees and should therefore be included in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file employees. The Court also affirms the findings of the voluntary arbitrator that the employees of the College of St. 253. 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. That the representatives of the workers in such labormanagement councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment. For this purpose. workers shall have the right. 5. an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. to participate in policy and decisionmaking processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights. workers and employers may form labormanagement councils: Provided.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. 253A and 256 of this Code (60 day freedom period) AGENCY AND FINALITY ORDER Filoil Refinery Corp. we rule that the said computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential employees. Action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is discretionary. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. As to the discipline officers. 232 Prohibition on Certification Election [sec. DLSU v. without prejudice to the certification election that has been ordered. 5.

A certification election  Is ordered by the Department. 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. 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. Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs.” BACKGROUND POLICIES AND CHARACTERISTICS BEHIND A CERTIFICATION ELECTION 1.  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. 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. It is NOT a litigation.1985 at the Company's premises and which became the root of this controversy. certification election and run-off election?   Department Order No. From the very nature of consent election. 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. 4. there being an existing collective bargaining agreement yet to expire on July 31.  Provided that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. While a consent election  Is voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. 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. (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. 1986. 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. The records show that petitioner admitted that what was held on August 25.  Where such a certified or consent results in none of the three (3) or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast. 1985 was not for the purpose of determining which labor union should be the bargaining representative in the negotiation for a collective contract. but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character  No determination asserted. they will choose WHICH among the contending union will be the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. unmistakable that the election thus held on August 25. UST Faculty Union v. 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. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification election. Ferrer-Calleja) There can be no direct certification There can be no voluntary recognition 3. This contention is untenable. It is not litigation. 2) And if they choose to have a union represent them. Distinguish Consent Election and Certification Election As correctly distinguished by private respondent. but only to determine which labor union shag administer the said existing contract. a consent election:  Is an agreed one. of rights violated or UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 48 of 139 . Bitonio (1999) “Specifically. was a consent election and not a certification election.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. It is. 2. with or without the intervention by the Department. 1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union 2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins. v.

Rule VI Section 2. security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work. When and where to file. 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. Section 2 of these Rules. should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statute. Of Labor) DIRECTLY certified the union.In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization. Even in a case where a union has filed a petition for certification elections. (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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 49 of 139 . Determination of The representation status. When respondent minister (Sec. 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. 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. Even after the Supreme Court made the ruling. the bureau of labor relations CANNOT certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative without conducting a certification election. the DOLE still included provisions o Voluntary Recoginition in DO No. 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. 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. reported with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule VII. . The constitutional mandate that the State shall assure the rights of the workers to selforganization. or through certification. RULE VII VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION Section 1.260 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. Associated Labor Union. modes. 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. the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. BAR QUESTION (1998.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations  Determination of worker’s choice only. 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. Inc. 257 . Another Suggested Answer: No. 40-03 series of 2003. 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. There should be no obstacle in conducting the Certificate election. collective bargaining.” (Port Workers Union v. 256. the intendment or purpose of the law will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded. run-off or consent election as provided in these Rules. There was therefore FAILURE TO DETERMINE with legal certainty whether the union indeed enjoyed majority representation. he in fact DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE AND ITS LEGAL REQUIREMENT. There can be NO DIRECT certification Colgate Palmolive Philippines v. v. “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. Requirements for voluntary recognition. 134 SCRA 82. .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. (Refer to doctrine of Colgate Palmolive) There can be NO VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION  This has been a debatable topic. The main purpose of the procedure in Art. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition. Section 2. 1985). the mere fact that no opposition is made does NOT warrant a certification election. 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. The Labor Code (in Arts.

the right NOT to join. The company did not have the power to declare the union as the exclusive representative of the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining. i. 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.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations (c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit. and NO union. ALU. and to engage in concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. besides the fact that the employees can choose between ALU. 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. 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. Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form. . v. Trajano (1992) First issue: Voting No Union The right of self-organization includes the right to …. number and substance. accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. Section 3. Logically. . 1967) Reyes v. the recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights. the Regional Office. within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice. to the effect that he desires not to be represented by any union. record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. 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.  An alternative choice of the employee voting. Section 4. What is the effect if in a certificate election.” (George & Peter Lines.”  “That there are no competing unions involved should not alter that principle. the protection. or enhancement of their rights and interests. the Regional Office shall. the freedom of choice by the employer being the primordial consideration. (Allied Free Workers Union v.Where the notice of voluntary recognition is sufficient in form. Cia Maritima. 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. 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.. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. 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. Upon expiration of this one-year period. there will be no duty to bargain on the part of either the employer or employee. 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. 1985. 19 SCRA 258. 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. 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. the union. notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements. affiliate with. L-51602. affiliate with. and to maintain membership therein. Sec of Labor (1998) Can an employer voluntarily recognize a union as the bargaining representative of the employees? HELD: NO! It cannot. Action on the Notice. (A vote for none. is subsumed in the right to join. NO UNION) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 50 of 139 . Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex v. and to disaffiliate or resign from a labor organization. or assist any union. within the same period.From the time of recording of voluntary recognition. 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. any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union. or assist any union. privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit. Inc. or for their mutual aid and protection. and (d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit. the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying documents without prejudice to its re-submission. through the Labor Relations Division shall.e. promotion. 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.

Neither law. 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. The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. is also in truth beyond question. not one of the unions which vied for certification as sole and exclusive bargaining representative. administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. VENUE OF PETITION: WHERE TO FILE? Cruz Valle Inc. If the results of the election should disclose that the majority of the workers do not wish to be represented by any union. The worker. Barbizon v. then the Certification Election ends. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail. 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. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. The allegation that some benefits under the existing CBA were extended to the monthly paid employees. 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." is specious. do have the right of self-organization. If Yes wins. which implies the power of the court to decide a case. 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. Rule V. even if true will not preclude them from entering into a CBA of their own. . hours and other terms and conditions of employment. from joining or forming any labor organization" — and "hence. . venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. We assume that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules. the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit. then their wishes must be respected. then proceed to the Second Stage. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case Section 1. Unlike jurisdiction. 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. have the right to bargain collectively. as the case may be. The petition shall be in writing and under oath. petitioner or respondent. The Supreme Court in previous cases ruled that the employees excluded from the coverage of the CBA. who not being excluded by law. 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. v." they were simply exercising that right of self-organization.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. 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. 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 . Where to file. as well as the fact that when they voted that the employees in their bargaining unit should be represented by "NO UNION. On the contrary. 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. If No wins . 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. That the INK employees. assignment or travel. 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. 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. workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. by which particular labor organization. And in the affirmative case. whether they are members of a labor organization or not. as employees in the same bargaining unit in the true sense of the term. . albeit in its negative aspect. on religious grounds. being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant.

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

Port Worker’s Union of the Philippines v. Moreover. 211a.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. 232. Prohibition on Certification Election.  When should the substantial support be shown or complied with? It need not be shown at the time of filing of the petition. 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. NO substantial support rule. Laguesma (1992) The Labor Code provides: Art. We cannot countenance the actuation of the petitioner and the management in this case which is not conducive to industrial peace. What is intent and purpose of law for requiring the substantial support rule? Law wants to know the intention of the employees. 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. to implement policy behind Art. If they really want a CE. As pointed out by public respondent in its comment. may be shown within a reasonable time thereafter but should be before the election. 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. 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. Inc. Manila. The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. the parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. the law it seeks to implement. 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. A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. 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. since they already have a bargaining agent. Their act was clearly intended to bar the petition for certification election filed by NAFLU. the existence of a duly registered Collective Bargaining Agreement between the petitioner and URFA. 253-A and 256 of this Code. Consequently. 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. 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. 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. Laguesma The holding of a certification election is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented. Associated Labor Union v. 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. Calleja (1989) Is the contract bar rule applicable where a collective bargaining agreement was hastily UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 53 of 139 . 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. Percentage all base: members of an appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly. The substantial support is only needed when filing for a petition for certification election. 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. Significantly the rule is not found in article 256. DISCUSSIONS ON THE FREEDOM PERIOD Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. Republic Planters Bank Unionv. v. WHY? Intention of law is to bring in the union. subject to the submission of the consent signatures WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD FROM SUCH FILING. 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.

(Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. 253-A and 256 of this Code.agri. “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. meaning that it has no existing bargaining agent. 1998) 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. 258 When the ER may file a petition . 257? A LEGITIMATE labor organization. order a certification election. after hearing. 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. However. 232 Prohibition on CE . This is best read in relation to Art. 258 EMPLOYER-INITIATED PETITION When can an employer file a petition? Only when it is requested to bargain collectively.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. Art. however. 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. Secretary of Labor). Art. 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. coercion. 257 apply or come into operation?  When an establishments is unorganized. CONDUCTING AGENCY Art. TAKE NOTE: Employer is a TOTAL STRANGER in the process of Certification Election. Once that requisite is complied with. then it becomes the ministerial duty of the BLR to conduct a certification election. 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. Noriel (1978) The BLR in the exercise of sound discretion. It cannot be an unregistered labor organization.  VENUE: Where to file? BLR region where union is. the Bureau shall. Art. The duty to ascertain whether there was compliance was on the director of labor. Who shall file the petition under Art. The one nearer to the employees. If the petition for certification of election complied with the requirements of the law including the substantial support requirement. If there is no existing certified CBA in the unit. Only the department of labor has authority to verify. 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.  Does a RIVAL union have authority to VERIFY the signatures in the substantial support requirement? No a rival union may not. except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of CBAs which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration.” (Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union v.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. or for a valuable consideration. 257 UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS  When will Art. and all disputes grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor management rels in all workplaces whether agricultural or non. the BLR may exercise its discretion in determining whether or not a certification election must be conducted. if the petition does not comply with the substantial support requirement. Hence. 226 Bureau of Labor Relations. On the contrary the presumption arises that the withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress. This is one way the law encourages union registration. Telephone Telegraph v.When requested to bargain collectively. The bureau shall have 15 working days to act on labor cases before it subject to extension by agreement of the parties. an ER may petition the Bureau for an election. the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the petition. 75 SCRA 450. may order a certification election notwithstanding the failure to meet the 30% requirement. Secretary of Labor and Employment 294 SCRA 640.  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 54 of 139 . Noriel. Employer has NO STANDING to file a MOTION TO DISMISS (Phil.

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

Acoje did not move for a reconsideration. order the conduct of a certification election. (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. Where such collective bargaining agreement is registered. not only to the holding of election. 40-03 WHO file? Sec. the posting of huge streamers. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Forced Intervenor. 3 to UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 56 of 139 . 2 to WHEN file? Sec. 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. Where an appeal has been filed from the order of the Med-Arbiter certifying the results of the election. 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. Nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins. As to the petition for intervention filed. the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all others. Certification Election–Process and Procedure DO No. Filing of the petition for CE within the freedom period is sufficient for the issuance of an order to conduct the CE. 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. (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. the Regional Office shall. The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter. visor. the same shall be automatically consolidated with the MedArbiter who first acquired jurisdiction. in which case. (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. It was viable considering that the principal petitions for CE were valid. administrative rule or WHERE file? Sec. Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office. The doctrine of estoppel is based on grounds of public policy. The minutes of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use of emblem. vitiated. . failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to the right to participate in future elections. JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act. Article 256 is merely directory. 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. the petition may be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry. influenced. No law.  What is a forced intervenor? Section 7. Other protests not so raised are deemed waived.The incumbent bargaining agent shall automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced intervenor. as well as the alleged escorting of voters by SMJALU have unduly pressured. 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. the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for consolidation. Said labor unions were given an opportunity to make their comments and observations on the list of workers contained in the payroll. except: (a) when a fact of voluntary recognition has been entered or a valid certification. EFFECT NON-PARTICIPATION PREVIOUS ELECTION Reyes v. Trajano (1992) Furthermore. A petition for certification election may be filed anytime. 1 may 1) Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election. the running of the one year period shall be suspended until the decision on the appeal has become final and executory. representations. the percentage requirement does not apply. good faith and justice. 3) If there is no existing registered collective bargaining agreement in the bargaining unit. Where the petitions are filed in different Regional Offices. fair dealing.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations Furthermore. 99 were able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. pin. VOTING LIST AND VOTERS Acoje Workers Union v NAMAWU (1963) Labor unions concerned agreed. after hearing. 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. an employer may file a petition for certification election with the Regional Office. Company presented payroll to said court. The results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters. Court issued order for the holding of the election and made its ruling on the question as to who were qualified to vote. Rule V. 2) When requested to bargain collectively. or in any manner affected the choice of the workers. 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.

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

Other protests not so raised are deemed waived. certain significant events took place without demur or objection of any sort. 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. Protests against elections should be formalized before the med-arbiter within (5) days from the close of the election proceedings. 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. Noriel (1975) General allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate a certification election. Protests not so raised are deemed waived.Part VI : Union Representation Establishing Union Majority Status Labor Relations ELECTION CONDUCT Hercules Industries Inc. No informal protest. or precluded the expression and ascertainment of the popular will in the choice of officers.010 voters only 692 voted and about 318 failed to vote. Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. influenced. v Secretary (1992) Notice of the certification election had been issued. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers participation in policy and decision-making [sec. The minutes of the certification election show that JIU only protested against the use of emblem. Fruits after filing a manifestation of protest on election day. Out of 1. the posting of huge streamers. vitiated. was ever presented against the election. APPEAL Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries v. These were shown by the minutes of the pre-election conference. and they must be deemed in the premises to have forfeited their right to impugn. Payroll was used as the basis of the voters' list. CERTIFICATION OF DESIGNATED MAJORITY UNION Art. it must be shown by competent and credible proof. The results of the certification election belie the allegation that the workers were misinformed about the election out of 104 eligible voters. He and the other officers of the Kapisanan negotiated with the AAATC management and succeeded in bringing about the execution of a new CBA.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 . and (2) The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days after the close of the election 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. 99 were able to cast their votes and only 3 were spoiled ballots. 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. There was tacit acceptance of the regularity of the elections and the results for during that period of 2 years. 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. or caused the perpetration of a fraud or other serious anomaly. Copies of said notice were given and posted in conspicuous places. 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. visor. That fact alone should have alerted Noriel to disregard the technicality that CCLU's protest was not filed on time. Only 15 out of the 98 voters signed their names showing that they actually voted. Noriel (1982) Certification election is invalid because of certain irregularities. pin. only formalized more than two months after the close of election proceedings. oral or written. Election supervisors were remiss in their duties and were apparently "intimidated" by a union representative. Protests not so raised are deemed waived. Phil. 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. PROTEST Timbungco v. However. Certification election give the employees "true representation in their collective bargaining with an employer". ANNULMENT United Employees Union of Gelmart Inv. JIU is estopped from raising that issue for it signed an agreement with JISSCOR to waive the mandatory 5 days posting of election notices. Secrecy of the ballot was not safeguarded. or in any manner affected the choice of the workers. as well as the alleged escorting of voters by SMJ-ALU have unduly pressured. Neither the records of the case nor the minutes of the certification election show that Hercules protested the conduct of the certification election. Nothing in the records shows that the alleged wearing of sunvisors and pins. v. Workers on the night shift and some of those in the afternoon shift were not able to vote. 22 of RA 6715] -. Protest was presented only after the lapse of 2 years after it was held. Objections to the elections have come too late. 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. ALU's written protest was based on the same founds invoked by CCLU in its protest.

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. 256: Within 60 days before expiration of the five year term of the CBA. subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate. 253. 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. Provided. In this case. 2) BUT ALSO where there had been an agreement that leaves out many or the same matters on which the parties should have stipulated. will it bar a petition for CE? My opinion is it will. 232) GENERAL RULE: The bureau shall NOT entertain any petition for certification election. wages.  What if a CBA is not registered but validly entered into by the parties. it will not bar a petition for CE already filed. The agreement being incomplete is no bar to a certification election. the election is invalid.  To have a valid election. conductors. I am only applying by analogy Trade Union of Philippines v. that total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast. an individual EE or group of EEs shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their ER. BARS TO THE CERTIFICATION ELECTION 1) 2) 3) Contract bar rule (Art. When an election which provides for 3 or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast. 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. 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. the rate of pay. 253-A/ Art. v Calleja (1989) To have a valid certification elecdtion.In organized establishments. 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. at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. Benguet Electric Cooperative. EXCEPT: TAKE NOTE: Buklod ng Saulog Transit v.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. For this purpose. Provided. However. In the present case. The contract bar rule can be validly invoked only if the existing CBA contains substantially those materials that should be included in the CBA. 256 Representation issue in organized establishments . 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. workers shall have the right.  At the expiration of the freedom period. Only 37 employees are not members of the cooperative and who are the only employees eligible to form or join a labor union. but I am not sure. 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. the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and company “does not touch in substantial terms. 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. TAKE NOTE: CBA should be complete AT THE TIME OF FILING of petition for certification election. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 59 of 139 . However. 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. BENEFITS and WELFARE. a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the 2 highest number of votes. Art. 253-A. at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. the minutes of the certification election show that a total of 83 employees were allowed to vote. 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 certification election is still null and void. even if amended CBA is submitted wherein the terms and conditions are complete. Inc. (Freedom period)Art. workers and ERs may form Labor Management Councils. 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.  Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. and inspectors who are members of the Buklod Saulog. the ER shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election has been filed.

RATIONALE for suspension the reason being. United CMC Textile Worker’s Union v.DATE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED -. DATE OF ELECTION -. 135547 January 23. BLR (1984) The ULP Case herein was filed on August 31. 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.IF APPEALED." WHAT SUSPENDS: Formal charge of ULP against the employer for establishing a company union. Espiritu GR no. CE cannot be suspended based on a pendency of a formal charge of ULP against a labor organization. and the faint-hearted in the ranks of labor could easily be tempted to cast their votes in favor of the choice of management. Justice Montemayor. Not from time of final resolution of appeal. (d) To initiate. the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place. In the instant case. The reason is that the certification election may lead to the selection of an employerdominated or company union as the employees' bargaining representative. shall suspend or bar proceedings for certification election. If it were a labor organization objecting to the participation in a certification election of a company-dominated union. 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. Should it emerge victorious. 2002) DEADLOCK-BAR RULE 1) faith. There would be instead a unilateral imposition by the employer. which was presented on September 5. 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. 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. there is a frustration of the statutory scheme. in the words of Mr. `if there is a union dominated by the company. DATE WHEN FINALLY RESOLVED SUSPENSION PREJUDICIAL QUESTION RULE Should be read in relation to Art.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. The timid. The old CBA is extended until a new one is filed. to which some of the workers belong. No allegation has been made that said ULP Case was instituted in bad faith to forestall the Certification Case. ONE-YEAR BAR RULE From time of valid certification election. and it becomes the exclusive representative of labor at the conference table. 253-A the representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. 248d: ULP: “It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice. the timorous. (Rivera v. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 60 of 139 . It takes two to bargain. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. 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.' 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. the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period.  What if the CBA was suspended? Under Art. WHO MAY ASK FOR SUSPENSION: Only a union. the union selected would be decertified and the whole election proceedings would be rendered useless and nugatory. 1978. as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. dominate. and when the court finds that said union is employer-dominated in the unfair labor practice case. Such charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that until decided.

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

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

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. Art. (Art. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. 252 also states that it is part of the duty to bargain to “execute a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime. 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.03 DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. 250d) 2. Duty to bargain in good faith (Art. 252): Can be broken down into two components: The positive statement and the Negative Statement. (Art. 233 Privileged communication. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. NEGOTIABLE ISSUES: Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. 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. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. 1.” How does the law encourage the parties to go into conciliation? Privileged Communication (Art. 252 Art. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. — In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. When there is a collective bargaining agreement. with respect to wages. 250 c). 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. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. POSITIVE STATEMENT NATURE of duty to bargain: Obligation HOW: Mutual to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith.” 7. “ 3. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. for the purpose negotiating agreement(CBA) of an PURPOSE: b. — 1. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. 233) a.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. 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. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. d. However. — 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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 63 of 139 . Art. This power to subpoenas merely to force the parties to participate. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT: Art. 2. but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. and e. NEGATIVE STATEMENT DUTY: “…but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. 253 Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. Art.

after having been served with a written bargaining proposal by Union. par. — A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: c. par. 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. . within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request. of Employees (2000) Noteworthy in Art. While it is a mutual obligation. upon written request. the employer is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. The information to be made available may be agreed upon between the parties to collective bargaining. . -. petitioner still had not made any counter-proposals. 1996. MEANING OF DUTY Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. In this case. Unfair labor practice is committed when it is shown that employer. Company made no counter proposal.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. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. to wit: Art. 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. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union to file its second notice of strike on March 13. including the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement. Even during the period of compulsory arbitration before the NLRC. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: (b) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. Assn. To be furnished by the employer. Section I. 1996. Article 249. 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. Disclosure of information. Company stalled the negotiation. More than a month after the proposals were submitted by the union. at the request of either of them. . It is a continuous process. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code governing the procedure in collective bargaining. Art. DEADLOCK San Miguel Corporation v. 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. 250. 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. Undoubtedly. the union lived up to this requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to petitioner on February 7. Republic Savings Bank v. for the purpose of adjusting any grievances or question arising under such agreement" and a violation of this obligation is an unfair labor practice. its communication may be made condition upon a commitment that it would be regarded as confidential to the extent required. 242 Rights of legitimate labor organizations. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice. (a) of the New Labor Code. 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 . NLRC (1999) Rule XXII. Where the disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial to the undertaking. of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V the Labor Code. (2) proof of majority representation and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251. On the other hand. as is material and necessary for meaningful negotiations. DO No. or during the collective bargaining negotiation.A strike or lockout may be declared in cases of UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 64 of 139 . petitioner devised ways and means in order to prevent the negotiation. (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. hours of work. the parties shall. make available such upto-date financial information on the economic situation of the undertaking. 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. which is normally submitted to relevant government agencies. Union made a definite request to bargain. Procedure in collective bargaining. with his annual audited financial statements. 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. accompanied with a copy of the proposed CBA to the Company not only once but twice. or within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement. It is a MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY of the employer and the Union and is characterized as a LEGAL OBLIGATION.10 reads: "Section 1. CIR (1967) Collective bargaining does not end with the execution of an agreement. Grounds for strike and lockout. Union has a valid cause to complain against its Company's attitude. did not even bother to submit an answer or reply to the said proposal.In collective bargaining.40-03 Seriies of 2003 RULE XVI COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Section 2.

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

Neither can bad faith be inferred from a party's insistence on the inclusion of a particular substantive provision unless it 7. If mandatory issue. Since the retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since 1972. Example of what falls under this statement: Stewardess bargains for better uniforms. as such. For legislation of that character proceeds on the premise that there is a floor below which the amount paid labor should not fall. 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. NLRC (1998) Indeed. Such an enactment is compulsory in nature. In the case at bar. out o Phil American Mgt Co. reward their loyalty. Consequently. 1996. refusal to bargain could lead to: A case of Unfair Labor Practice May be a valid ground for a strike or lockIf permissive issue. 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. boost their morale and efficiency and promote industrial peace. not even the consent of the employees themselves suffices to defeat its operation. there is no legitimate representation issue and. there is no room for offer and counter offer. in relation to Articles 253. however. The fact that the retirement plan is noncontributory does not make it a non-issue in the CBA negotiations. Phil. Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. 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. the adamant insistence on a bargaining position to the point where the negotiations reach an impasse does not establish bad faith. Reliance. the contract bar rule still applies. The petition for certification election by ACEC.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. No petition for certification election for any representation issue may be filed after the lapse of the sixty-day freedom period. The "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3. provides that: " . 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. Nestle Phil. 253-A and 256 of the Labor Code. the filing of the petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation. was filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26. The employer has an obligation to meet. o o The consequences are different for the refusal to bargain. He must pay what he has to. It is as simple as that.04 BARGAINABLE ISSUES BARGAINABLE ISSUES: wages.… If a collective bargaining agreement has been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code. Cannot strike or lock-out. It is understandable why it should be so. refusal to bargain will NOT produce a case for ULP. Almost all of the benefits granted to its employees under the CBA are noncontributory benefits. Book V. 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. It is an existing benefit voluntarily granted to them by their employer. 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. 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. What cannot be denied. by petitioner of the ruling in Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. V NLRC (1991) Retirement plan is negotiable. What the law decrees must be obeyed.  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 . The old CBA is extended until a new one is signed. the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 1989-1994. gives "a consensual character" to the plan so that it may not be terminated or modified at will by either party. the petition was filed outside the sixty-day freedom period. Included therein is the question of minimum wages. Rule XI. demand to increase the benefits due the employees is a valid CBA issue. the filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement. Hence. American Mgt Employees (1973) Even then. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. Example of what does not fall under this statement: A company janitor asks for a car. of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. NOR will it allow that economic weapons be used. Employees have a vested or demandable right to a non-contributory retirement plan. there is an area placed beyond the sphere of bargaining between the parties. Clearly. His duty is plain. More plainly put. That is to assure decent living conditions. allegedly a legitimate labor organization. the question of minimum wage is not negotiable. Foremost is that a petition for certification election must be filed during the sixty-day freedom period. To that extent. therefore. v. Hence." The rule is based on Article 232. Marcelo Enterprises is misplaced since that case involved a legitimate representation issue which is not present in the case at bar.

As such. 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. 40-03 series of 2003 Book V Rule XVII UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 67 of 139 . hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. A CBA. 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. 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. be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. 252 of the Labor Code.  As a matter of right. an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. The same requirements and procedure in the registration of collective bargaining agreements prescribed in the preceding rules shall be applied. is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest. however. it could have refused to bargain and to enter into a CBA with private respondent. as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 Civil Code which governs the relations between labor and capital.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. be for a term of five (5) years. 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. insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the CBA. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement. Sec. 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.05 THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BARGAINING Art. Section 7. of Labor (2002) A CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the 7. 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.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations concerns trivial matters or is obviously intolerable. On the other hand. giving due consideration to the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve. ECONOMIC ASPECT: All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. contract bar rule. 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.All provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. except the representation status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall. thus. "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. University of the Immaculate Concepcion v. the importance of its proposal dawned on it only after the wage orders were issued after the CBA had been entered into. and the courts must place a practical and realistic construction upon it. While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties. it must be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically. If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months. the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. Term of representation status. private respondent's firm stand against the proposal did not mean that it was bargaining in bad faith. . Abrquez (93) A CBA as used in Art. DEFINITION Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. DO No. the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof. it must yield to the common good." On account of the importance of the economic issue proposed by petitioner union. . 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. It had the right "to insist on (its) position to the point of stalemate. Re-negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. 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." On the part of petitioner union. The re-negotiated collective bargaining agreement shall be ratified and registered with the same Regional Office where the preceding agreement was registered. Section 8. POLITICAL ASPECT: Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall. it is not.

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

just like any other contract. and certainly may not claim the benefits thereunder. any doubt or ambiguity in the contract between management and the union members should be resolved in favor of the latter. 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. This is pursuant to Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides: “(I)n case of doubt.800. the latter shall prevail over the former. this Court has held that when a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer. 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. is respected as the law between the contracting parties and compliance therewith in good faith is mandated. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. it is only fair and just that the employees hired thereafter be included in the existing CBA. This is in consonance with our ruling that the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement continue to have force and effect 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. Similarly. For this purpose. It is even conceded. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled. Since in this particular case. after he has resigned from said union.00) per The above provisions state that employees transferred from Makati City to Bauan. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. Lorredo (1993) A collective bargaining agreement. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. V. are not parties to the agreement. Employees can avail this provision provided their transfer is on a permanent basis or for a duration exceeding one (1) month. We do not agree. Contracts which are not ambiguous are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and not beyond their obvious intendment. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Nature of the Contract Babcock-Hitachi (Phils. Batangas are entitled to a monthly relocation allowance of P1. The COMPANY shall provide a relocation allowance of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P1.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations Secretary of Labor and Employment. even the nonmember employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. 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.500. no new agreement had been entered into after the CBA's stipulated term. – The parties to a CBA shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. but if the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties. 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. In the same vein. provided their transfer is permanent or for a period exceeding one month. Section 2.00.” Pertinent are Sections 1 and 2. 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 . the rules embodied in the Civil Code on the proper interpretation of contracts can very well govern. Aboitiz. In a long line of cases. the benefits under the CBA in the instant case should be extended to those employees who only became such after the year 1984. For employees who will be transferred from Makati to Bauan. parties to a CBA shall 1) name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. To begin with. The intention of the parties is primodial. 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. 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.” Kimberly Clark Phils. the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress. Regional Directors and the Commission. 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. the relocation assistance shall be ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1. Such provisions need no interpretation for they are clear. In Mactan Workers Union vs.500.00). if the terms of the contract are clear. all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Article XXI of the CBA which provide: “Section 1.” New Pacific Timber and Supply v. Individual Grievance Dispute issues and Art. the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control.) V. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against nonmembers. we held that “the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties.

It is of no moment that Mr. Their alternatives — whether to have one or three arbitrators — have their respective advantages and disadvantages. the hiring. as well as the CBA. they are not absolute prerogatives. and it is best accomplished in a hearing conducted by three arbitrators. PAL v.". In effect. The Corporation's refusal to heed petitioners' request to undergo the grievance procedure clearly UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 70 of 139 . and promotion of employees are traditionally identified as management prerogatives. 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. pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the CBA. the latter closed the door to this possibility by not assigning someone else to look into the matter during Abad's absence. the division head shall act on the grievance within five (5) days from the date of presentation thereof. with or without reason. Contrary to petitioner's submission. 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. of necessity. we cannot really impute grave abuse of discretion to public respondent on this issue. full deliberation on the issues is another. Master Iron Labor Union v. if clearly shown to be in grave abuse of discretion. may be looked into by the courts.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations 2) Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. CIR Grievance procedure is a part of the continuous process of collective bargaining. the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Abad's failure to act on the matter may have been due to petitioner's inadvertence. an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. 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. Santos (1993) It is clear that the grievance was filed with Mr. otherwise "the grievance must be resolved in favor of the aggrieved party. a collective bargaining agreement. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. 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. cost is not the only consideration. They are subject to limitations found in law. Thus. the grievance of employees is not a matter which requires the personal act of Mr. At bottom. should not prevent the application of the CBA." 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. Even the law itself does not specify the number of arbitrators. 255 Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-making. Abad's secretary during his absence. Abad immediately looked into the grievance upon returning to work. o However. Abad. Indeed. firing. Public respondent even provided for two steps in hearing grievances prior to their referral to arbitration. This knowledge. Article 260 of the Labor Code. does not per se constitute unjust discrimination. is therefore untenable. Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Under Section 2 of the CBA aforequoted. states the expected wages of the workers. demonstrated its lack of intent to abide by the terms of the CBA. Republic Savings Bank v. 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. but it is clearly too much of an injustice if the employees be made to bear the dire effects thereof. as incorporated by RA 6715. such exercise. Rather. We believe that the procedure described by public respondent sufficiently complies with the minimum requirement of the law. 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. Abad and thus could not be delegated. It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue. Much as the latter were willing to discuss their grievance with their employer. Petitioner could at least have assigned an officer-in-charge to look into the grievance and possibly make his recommendation to Mr. 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. transfer. Brilliantes (1997) No particular setup for a grievance machinery is mandated by law. The parties will decide on the number of arbitrators who may hear a dispute only when the need for it arises. demotion. In this matter. however. However. the parties are afforded the latitude to decide for themselves the composition of the grievance machinery as they find appropriate to a particular situation. as may be necessary. As respondent NLRC has pointed out. While it is true that an employer's exercise of management prerogatives.  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.

4) SIGNING BONUS In contractual terms. be for a term of 5 years. to our mind. The parties were in bad faith when they concluded the CBA. . however. 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. while the union maintains that MERALCO controls these funds and may therefore be compelled to improve this benefit in an arbitral award.On the other hand. Manila Electric Co. Without the goodwill. HMP BENEFITS FOR 3) GHSIP. The court reviewed the Secretary’s order and made the following list of economic and noneconomic issues. DEPENDENTS and HOUSING EQUITY LOAN Moreover. Quisumbing (1999) In this petition for certiorari. insofar as the representation aspect is concerned. 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.  All other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution.  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. The reliance on Foamtex case weakens rather than strengthens petitioner's stand. and to incorporate in this new CBA the Secretary's dispositions on the disputed economic and noneconomic issues. V.The issue requires a finding of fact on the legal personality of the retirement fund. 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. 5) SICK LEAVE RESERVE OF 15 DAYS UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 71 of 139 . 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.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. the payment of a signing bonus cannot be justified and any order for such payment.  Any CBA that the parties may enter into shall.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations believing that the effects of the CBA in their favor had already stepped into the controversy. citing Article 232 of the Labor Code. 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. 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. Calleja (1989) Petitioner. 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. . . 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. these benefits should be incorporated in the new CBA.The question squarely brought in this petition is whether the Secretary can issue an order that binds the retirement fund. the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. no certification election may be conducted. Contract Duration And Renewals Art. Hence.  In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the CBA. a) ECONOMIC ISSUES: 1) CHRISTMAS BONUS 2) RICE SUBSIDY and RETIREMENT BENEFITS for RETIREES . 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The company alleges that a separate and independent trust fund is the source of retirement benefits for MERALCO retirees. the parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In the absence of any evidence on record indicating the nature of the retirement fund's legal personality. MERALCO even pledged to continue giving these benefits. Contract Infirmity Associated Labor Unions v. 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. In fact. MERALCO control over these funds means that MERALCO may be compelled in the compulsory arbitration of a CBA deadlock where it is the employer.  If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months. Here. to improve retirement benefits since retirement is a term or condition of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. A CBA which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. only a certified CBA would serve as a bar to the holding of a certification election.

[A]ll other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be re-negotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. the labor arbiter rendered a decision embodying provisions for a new CBA. If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution. the labor arbiter acted contrary to Art." It is in this re-negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock. 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. - - - - - 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. on the other hand. the law expressly gives the parties — not - Manila Central Line Corp. . but the deadlock remained unresolved. Court declared that such consultation requirement will go against principle of mgt prerogative. 253-A of the Labor Code. If such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months. On February 9. there is no impairment of management prerogatives. while . this question was among those submitted for arbitration by the parties: Rivera v. private respondent sought the aid of the NCMB on October 30. Held: Art.. it may be made retroactive to the date of expiration of the previous agreement. duties and welfare as required in Article 211 (A) (g) of the Labor Code. What the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re-negotiated within 3 years "after its execution. Manila Central Line Free Workers Union (1998) Facts: This case arose out of a collective bargaining deadlock between petitioner and private respondent union. . On September 28. In this manner. Certainly.e. 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. The CBA in this case. Therefore. such as herein involved. It provides that the representation aspect of the CBA is to be for a term of 5 years. . Petitioner also contends that in ordering a new CBA to be effective on March 15. Another legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties. 1990. 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. . Uniform Committee and other committees of a similar nature. And this can only be done when the Union is allowed to have representatives in the Safety Committee. 1989. the law does not specifically cover the situation where 6 months have elapsed but no agreement has been reached with respect to effectivity. we hold that any provision of law should then apply for the law abhors a vacuum. 1989.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. is part of an arbitral award. 1989. i. such participation by the Union in the said committees is not in the nature of a co-management control of the business of MERALCO. To the contrary. the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining parties. In this eventuality. 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. As the parties failed to reach new agreement. 253-A refers to CBA’s entered into by the parties as a result of their mutual agreement. that in the absence of a new CBA. private respondent filed a “Petition for Compulsory Arbitration” in the Arbitration Branch for the National Capital Region of the National Labor Relations Commission. What is granted by the Secretary is participation and representation. . public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof. the parties shall agree on the duration of the effectivity thereof. an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award. Under these terms. 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. The parties’ CBA had expired on March 15. Indeed. it is clear that the 5year term requirement is specific to the representation aspect. the expiry date of the old CBA. 1990. v. 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 . As such. A. as to the order of the labor arbiter states. Significantly. Thus. it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. One such provision is the principle of hold over. 5) INCLUSION OF ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE CBA 6) RETROACTIVITY OF THE CBA Art. 253-A serves as the guide in determining when the effectivity of the CBA at bar is to take effect. . then.

it is not difficult to determine the period of effectivity for the nonrepresentation provisions of the CBA. 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. NLRC (1995) A change of ownership in a business concern is not proscribed by law. Manlimos v. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. taken together. Likewise. Petitioners’ contention that the agreement installs PALEA as a virtual company union is also untenable. Corp. It can be gleaned from their discussions that it was left to the parties to fix the period. 6715 (the Herrera-Veloso Law) which took effect on March 21. which provides: b. PAL shall continue recognizing PALEA as the duly certified-bargaining agent of the regular rank-and-file ground employees of the Company. In the instant case.Part VII : Collective Bargaining Labor Relations agreement virtually installed PALEA as a company union for said period. San Miguel Corp Employees Union v. thus binding only between the parties. 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. In Central Azaucarera del Danao vs. 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. the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period. Its objective is to assure the continued existence of PALEA during the said period. This new provision states that the CBA has a term of five (5) years instead of three years. "All other provisions" simply refers to the rest of the CBA. Mabuhay had nothing to do with the negotiations and consummation of the lease contract bet Sundowner and Syjuco. We are unable to declare the objective of union security an unfair labor practice. the framers of the law did not give a fixed term as to the effectivity of the terms and conditions of employment. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. in violation of Article 253-A of the Labor Code mandating that an exclusive bargaining agent serves for five years only. The CBA is a contract between the parties and the parties must respect the terms and conditions of the agreement. In construing an instrument with several provisions. Notably. except representation. this court stated: There can be no controversy for it is a principle well-recognized. This was incorporated by Section 21 of Republic Act No. clearly show the intent of the parties to maintain “union security” during the period of the suspension of the CBA. 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. The same can only be restricted by law through the exercise of police power. Under said article. The questioned proviso of the agreement reads: a. Confesor (1996) Article 253-A is a new provision. Court of Appeals. All other provisions of the CBA shall be negotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution. the framers of the law wanted to maintain INDUSTRIAL PEACE and stability by having both management and labor work harmoniously together without any disturbance. Thus.” The case records are bare of any showing of such acts by PAL. However. 1989. The aforesaid provisions. the parties are liable to the employees if the transaction between the parties is colored or clothed with bad faith. 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. amounting to unfair labor practice. Under Article 248 (d) of the Labor Code. 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 . labor contracts being in personam. The aforesaid provision must be read within the context of the next clause. For this reason. 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. We also do not agree that the agreement violates the five-year representation limit mandated by Article 253-A. 1989. Obviously. a company union exists when the employer acts “[t]o initiate. Taking it from the history of their CBAs. This conclusion draws its force from the rights of an employer to select his employees and to decide when to engage them. dominate. before the amendment of the law as far as the representation aspect is concerned. v Drilon (1989) HELD: Labor contracts such as employment contracts and CBAs are not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise. 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. The ‘union shop/maintenance of membership’ provision under the PAL-PALEA CBA shall be respected. In the CAB. 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. CBA and 3rd Party Applicability Rule Sundowner Dev’t. 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 representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. Said proviso cannot be construed alone. economic as well as non-economic 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. a construction must be adopted as will give effect to all.

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. Association of the locals into the national union was in furtherance of the same end. 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. or when liability arises because of the new owner's participation in thwarting or defeating the rights of the employees. Such dismissal or termination should not however be interpreted in such a manner as to permit the employer to escape payment of termination pay. Effect f Expiry New Pacific Timber and Supply Co. 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. Better for industrial peace if effectivity of the CBA is longer. The New CBA is given PROSPECTIVE effect generally since 253 and 253-A provides for an automatic renewal clause in existing CBAs. but the CBA continues to exist. 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. NLRC (2000) WON the terms of an existing CBA particularly as to the economic provisions. For such a situation is not envisioned in the law. the rule has been laid down that the sale or disposition must be motivated by good faith as an element of exemption from liability. As in the exercise of such management prerogative. Where there occurs a shift in employee’s union allegiance after the execution of a collective bargaining contract with their employer. the employees can change their agent – the labor union. During the effectivity of a collective bargaining agreement executed between employer and employees thru their agent. therefore it encompasses all provisions. when the liability therefor is assumed by the new employer under the contract of sale. is to give preference to the qualified separated employees in the filling of vacancies in the facilities of the purchaser. Consequently. an innocent transferee of a business establishment has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue employing them. 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. Where such transfer of ownership is in good faith. except. 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. consisting of employees and members of the local union was the principal party to the agreement. the employer may merge or consolidate its business with another. Indeed. It strikes at the very concept of social justice. is unfair labor practice. These associations are consensual entities capable of entering into such legal relations with their members. Nor is the transferee liable for past unfair labor practices of the previous owner. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 74 of 139 . 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. including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances so warranted. Elisco-Elirol Labor Union v. Noriel (1977) HELD: Union-NAFLU. 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. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. for reasons of public policy and social justice. 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. 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. the transferee is under no legal duty to absorb the transferor's employees as there is no law compelling such absorption. 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. Inc v. Inc. Disaffiliation: Doctrine of Substitution Benguet Consolidated. PURPOSE: To avoid creating a gap during which no agreement would govern. 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. In a number of cases on this point.

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

e. COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION." Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective bargaining. self-employed people. 212 (k) Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations 3. It is clear that such ULP charge was merely an afterthought. The complaint was made only on August 16. to elect their representatives in full freedom to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or the right to form association. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. Jr. Art. without distinction whatsoever. interference in the selection of the Union’s negotiating panel. 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. 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. Confessor (2004) "Interference" under Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code The petitioner asserts that the private respondent committed ULP. 8. The accusation occurred after the arguments and differences over the economic provisions became heated and the parties had become frustrated. Article 248(a) of the Labor Code. its officers. However. Ambulant. 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. particularly in Article 243 thereof. v. In the case at bar. to job organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. which provides: ART. 98 pertaining to the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining. LAW NOMENCLATURE AND RELATIONS OF ACTS OF ULP INTERThe aforecited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code. 243. 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. 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE to which the Philippines is a signatory.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 . the negotiations pushed through. – All persons employed in commercial. suggested to the Union President that Umali. To interfere with. The records show that after the initiation of the collective bargaining process. The Union claims that interference in the choice of the Union’s bargaining panel is tantamount to ULP. be excluded from the Union’s negotiating panel. 1993 after a deadlock was declared by the Union. i. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. etc. rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. subject only to the rules of the organization concerned. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. 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. shall have the right to self-organization and to form. Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO) No. Art. President of the NUBE. Standard Chartered Bank. charitable. industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious. Parenthetically. join. when Diokno. "workers and employers. shall have the right to establish and. and Articles 248 and 249 respecting ULP of employers and labor organizations.. considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes. ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code is committed.. (2) In particular. agents or representatives: a. functioning or administration. In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor Code.43 Article 2 of ILO Convention No. Art. with the inclusion of Umali in the Union’s negotiating panel. It happened after the parties started to involve personalities. the Bank’s HR Manager. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. 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. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. intermittent and itinerant workers. substantial evidence is required to support the claim. the Union bases its claim of interference on the alleged suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali from the Union’s negotiating panel. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations within the meaning of this Article. medical or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not.

Thus. 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. The prohibition is directed only against the use of the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of discrimination. INTERFERENCE.organization and collective bargaining guaranteed by the Act are amply secured to the employee. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. (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. (d) To initiate. NON-UNION MEMBERSHIP WITHDRAWAL FROM MEMBERSHIP CONDITION EMPLOYMENT OR AS Art. labor-management committees may be formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the purpose of promoting industrial peace. an employer may be held liable under this provision if his conduct affects in whatever manner the right of an employee to selforganize. c. 4. 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. CONTRACTING UNIONISM OUT TO DISCOURAGE Art. 1. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. the employer therefore still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization. (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. The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop. 2. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective Art.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Royal InterOcean Lines v. 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. 277 g. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. 3. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. with the agreement of labor organizations and employers. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. the court must be mindful of the welfare of the honest employer. certainly not every unfair act or decision constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) as defined and enumerated under Art. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. its officers. 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. including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. dominate. COMPANY DOMINATION UNION Art. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. (1999) While an act or decision of an employer may be unfair. 248 of the Labor Code. However. working conditions and the quality of working life. Despite the employees' right to selforganization. 5. 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. In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists. (c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. Art. Art. labor- UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 77 of 139 . assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. interference or oppression because of one's labor or union activities. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization. "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. agents or representatives: a. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. "It is the function of the court to see that the rights of self. Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. but in its effort to prevent the prescribed unfair labor practices.18 There should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to selforganization. DISCRIMINATION ENCOURAGE/DISCOURAGE UNIONISM Art. To interfere with. These have not been proved in the case at bar. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers.f. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. 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. his normal prerogative to hire or dismiss them.

it appears that she was discharged in the Spring of 1945 at the time when question of union representation was becoming acute. 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. 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. a step allegedly justified by PMOG's refusal to furnish proof of majority representation. (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. Micaller (1956) We are afraid that we cannot now look into points 1 and 2 for they involve questions of fact. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided. which in our opinion is on all fours with the present. 159 Fed 2d 518. but only a pretext. 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. The asserted reason for the investigation cannot be sustained. The rule with respect thereto is well settled and was stated by us recently in the case of NLRB vs. NATURE OF ACT Interrogation Scoty’s Department Store v. is NLRB vs. 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. 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. - Art. 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. except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations bargaining agent as a condition for employment. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. Steam Navigation Co. RETALIATION EMPLOYER TESTIMONY AGAINST Art. where the following was held: As to the Board's finding of interference. The record discloses that such investigation was started even before it received PMOG's reply stating a refusal to submit proof of majority representation. EXACTION. 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. Edler's testimony.FEATHERBEDDING Art. was merely to ascertain for itself the existence of a duty to bargain collectively with PMOG. discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code. 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. Norfolf-Southern Bus Corpn. HarrisWoodson Co. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. 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. As to the discharge of the president of the union. It was shown that Mrs. One of such cases. 6. 7. 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. that the individual authorization required under Article 242. 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. Edler was a competent and efficient employee with a long record of faithful service. to determine whether they had authorized PMOG to act as their bargaining agent. and by the controversies and even quarrels between the employees and the superintendent had not therefore led to discharge. (2) the subjection of PMOG to vilification. (f) To dismiss. which was accepted by the Board. v. The Company contends that the ground of the discharge was insubordinate language and conduct. However. o Reason for this according to PHILSTEAM. cases that may be resorted to where been found guilty of unfair labor practice under similar circumstances and was given the corresponding sanction. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 78 of 139 . and evidence of a controversy between the employer and the superintendent was not the true reason for the discharge. and (3) the participation of PHILSTEAM's pier superintendent in soliciting membership for a competing union. Under such circumstances. deck officers and engineers. Phil. According to Mrs. have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the Act. (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent.

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

or by fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer. not on unions or their nonemployee organizers. . Ltd (1971) Indeed. of unfair labor practice." "free coffee and occasional movies." and "arrangements" for their families. and the employer's statement. when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots. to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work. 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. "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. or surveillance thereof. and a new building to work in. The employee was discharged. consequently. NLRB L." "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours. NLRB 324 US 793 (1945) The employer. It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to striking employees individually. The union was at that time active in seeking to organize the plant. accident insurance. well before any union activity at the plant. Jean Country is inconsistent with this Court's past interpretation of 7. are such instances of interference. the employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union. . restraint or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize. form and join unions as to constitute unfair labor practice . profitsharing. or an ex-employee ." Because the union failed to establish the existence of any "unique obstacles" that frustrated access to Lechmere's employees. 3 other employees were discharged for wearing union steward buttons in the plant after being requested to remove the insignia.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." Economic Coercion And Inducement Insular Life Assurance Co. Because Lechmere's employees do not reside on its property. v. an employer cannot be compelled to allow nonemployee organizers onto his property." Union Solicitation And Distribution Of Literature And Materials Lechmere. 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. 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. so they would abandon the strike and return to work. 2d 79 (1992) Lechmere did not commit an unfair labor practice by barring nonemployee union organizers from its property. military aircraft manufacturer. Thus. wage increases given for the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union. restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization than such activity even where no discharges result. "It has been held in a great number of decisions that espionage by an employer of union activities. the Board erred in concluding that Lechmere committed an unfair labor practice by barring the nonemployee organizers from its property. Likewise violative of the right to organize. Inc. (c) The facts in this case do not justify application of Babcock's inaccessibility exception.' o The unfair labor practice is committed whether the espionage is carried on by a professional labor spy or detective. since the employees thus offered reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be. they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and. o 'Nothing is more calculated to interfere with. as a rule. 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. they are presumptively not "beyond the reach" of the union's message. Employees Assn." It is only when reasonable access to employees is infeasible that it becomes appropriate to balance 7 and private property rights. v. by officials or supervisory employees of the employer. Insular Life Assurance Co. Nor does the fact that they live in a large metropolitan area render them "inaccessible. .' 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. v. made about 6 weeks after the strike started. (a) By its plain terms. (b) At least as applied to nonemployee union organizers. . they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization. Ed. a general rule against soliciting which read as follows: 'Soliciting of any type cannot be permitted in the factory or offices. adopted. the NLRA confers rights only on employees. when they are represented by a union. or for the purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work. Republic Aviation Corp. 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 .

b. Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex. NLRB v.  The employer may not affirmatively interfere with organization." Discrimination Wise and Co. c. 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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 81 of 139 . 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. they derive their benefits from the terms and conditions of the CBA contract which constitute the law between the contracting parties. 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.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations favor of employees challenging an employer's nosolicitation policy. These nonunion employees are not covered by the CBA. according to its discretion and judgment.000 people. Inc. which justifies banning such insignia. The Court holds that it is the prerogative of management to regulate.. 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.S. Employees Union. the union may not always insist that the employer aid organization. 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. Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. A “runaway shop” in this sense. 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. Guiding principle for adjusting conflicts between Sec. 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. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to the employees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative. a right that cannot be abridged unless the employer is able to establish that a special circumstance exists. employee access being through several gates. 351 U. 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. Run-Away Shop Complex Electronics Employees Association v. Approximately 90% of the employees drove to work in private cars. is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. that preserves property rights. The plant buildings were enclosed within a fence. d. However. Babcock & Wilcox Co. 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. The Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that employees have a presumptive right to wear union insignia. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. a runaway shop. 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. 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. however. It is only because of the peculiar circumstances of this case showing there is no such intention that this court ruled otherwise. Ionics was already existing as an independent company. all aspects of employment. 7 rights and property rights:  "Organization rights are granted to workers by the same authority. operated a manufacturing plant on a 100-acre tract about one mile from a community of 21. inc. In this case. They do not derive and enjoy the benefits under the CBA. 105 (1956). It appears to have been done hi good faith and without ulterior motive. In the case of the union members. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex. Wise and Co.  But when the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by non-employees to communicate with them through the usual channels. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics. 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. Held: The Union's contentions are untenable. the National Government. but this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of the corporation. Only employees and deliverymen normally used the parking lot. The company had a rule forbidding the distribution of literature on company property. v. Both the employer and the union members are bound by such agreement. and the company maintained a parking lot for the employees. Accommodation between the two must be obtained with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other. 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.

or defend crime. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the workers. gave a wrong signal to customers of Complex. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union.  In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. e. the closure was triggered by the customers' pull-out of their equipment. which consequently resulted in the loss of employment of not only a few but to all the of the workers. there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. provided it is the representative of the employees. If the dispute is not settled. or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer. machinery and materials. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. d. c. The indiscretion committed by the Union in filing the notice of strike. o However. either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. 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. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: a. protect fraud. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. 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 parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations (c) To violate the duty. b. Art.  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.  When there is a collective bargaining agreement. 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.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. was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. As very clearly established. Art. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 82 of 139 . justify wrong. 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. who were alarmed by the pending labor dispute and the imminent strike by the union. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 1. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. VIOLATE DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. Art. 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. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply. either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. v. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. 8. Art. 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. and The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.03 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. o the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. 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. General Milling Corp. 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. 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.

That a labor dispute. fixing. (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. Accordingly. 1989. o Terms. or voluntary arbitration provided in the CBA.Part VIII : Unfair Labor Practice Labor Relations Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals." While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between itself. no estoppel of the right to question jurisdiction can be ascribed to PAL. Employees Union v. except those which are gross in character. among others. 1989." PAL may not be regarded as precluded from impugning the jurisdiction of the Arbiter and the Commission because. Art. 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. x x x Singapore Airlines Employees Association v. guilty of unfair labor practice. GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. VIOLATE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BARGAINING Jurisdiction over such violations was withdrawn from the Labor Arbiters and vested in the voluntary arbitrator. under the circumstances. At bottom. adjudged by him. o Put differently. that they be absorbed into the working unit of SanMig. and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment) being in fact enjoined not to "entertain disputes. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement Art.04 EMPLOYER FUNCTIONS AND ULP San Miguel Corp. supra) provided the controversy concerns. regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. This matter definitely dwells on the working relationship between said employees visa-vis SanMig. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. it was only after PAL's motion for reconsideration of November 21. the terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof (ibid). 248 Unfair labor practices of employers (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. on the one hand. Under the circumstances. PAL V. 8. does exist herein is evident. 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. violations of collective bargaining agreements were no longer deemed unfair labor practices . 2. making it liable for unfair labor practice. violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. An error in interpretation without malice or bad faith does not constitute unfair labor practice. and thereafter appealed to and resolved by the latter adversely to PAL. o a labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1]. 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. NLRC (1984) Despite a finding of petitioner's entitlement to her claim for reimbursement.A.  x x x. Labor Code. as of March 21. in effect.and were considered mere grievances resolvable through the appropriate grievance machinery. NLRC (1997) Thus. Art. the former (including the Commission itself. and as defined by law. 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 . we are not prepared to pronounce respondent SIA guilty of unfair labor practice. gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. 261 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Perforce. NEGOTIATION OR ATTORNEY’S FEES Art. on March 21. what the Union seeks is to regularize the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite and. changing. As already observed.except those gross in character .  For purposes of this article. 6715) had not come into effect. We take judicial notice of the fact that honest differences in construction may arise in the actual application of contractual provisions. at the time that the proceedings were initiated before the former. as defined by the law. maintaining. the law amending their jurisdiction (R. and the contractual workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other. its Regional Offices. the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC is. or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. 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 3.1988 had been filed and was awaiting resolution before the NLRC that said law became effective.

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

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

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

. fixing.. S. et al. Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation-Solidarity Unions in the Phil v.J. the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited.. fixing.e. an intentional replication of RA 875. it ought to be obvious that the right should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of labor. When that happens.  Father Joaquin G. The members and the supporters of the petitioner union. Bernas. bereft of an adequate remedy at law. 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. however. the purposes for which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required cannot be achieved. for the moment.  Often times." 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. Ordinarily. Zamora (1986) The pilots' mass action was not a strike because employees who go on strike do not quit their employment. 1989. To be sure.. Lapanday Workers Union v. Enriquez v. Stated otherwise. the deleterious effects of a wrongfully issued. The blockade of the delivery of trucks and the attendance of employees from the other departments of the respondent meant work stoppage. as amended. 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. enactment of a law implementing the right to strike was an inevitability.  As can be clearly inferred from the spot reports. DEFINITION Art. RA 6715 came into being on March 21. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. thus: If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory. maintaining. Overseas. 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. but not the waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law.  In light of the genesis of the right to strike. Even the liberal US Federal Constitution did not elevate the right to strike to a constitutional level.  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.  In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations including the right to strike in accordance with law. This is as it ought to be. 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 . for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike.  With a constitutional matrix. should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of extreme necessity. employees from the knitting department also joined in picket.  It bears stressing that the other divisions were fully operational.  They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before staging a strike filing of notice of strike. 9.: the constitutional recognition of the right to strike does serve as a reminder that injunctions. 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. This equalizing stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondent."  This constitutional imprimatur given to the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor.. taking of strike vote. should be reduced to the barest minimum. Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional status to the right to strike. regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. thru concerted action. caused a temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial dispute. we ruled that these steps are mandatory in character. ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment. they unduly tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital. 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. 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. i.02 STRIKE ACTIVITY 1. supra. 212(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is. Its issuance. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. headed by petitioner Tomaroy. maintaining.

B. cannot be considered in the opinion of this Court. neither employers nor employees should be allowed to make of judicial authority a now-you've-got-it-now-you-don't affair. means “any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. as amended. "it is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated.  A legitimate concerted activity is a matter that cannot be used to circumvent judicial orders or be tossed around like a plaything. "a potent means of inhibiting speech. L-33705. they were not dismissed. Moreover. as mere 'temporary stoppage of work'." Phil. The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees. 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. the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally.1) of Republic Act No. in effect imposes on the workers the "duty x x x to observe regular working hours. 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. that for the employees to come within the protective mantle of Section 3 in relation to Section 4(a. 1970 was a concerted activity protected by law was put to rest in Chavez vs.” The term “strike” shall comprise not UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 90 of 139 . We pronounced therein that:  "Parenthetically. Moreover. 1977 together with Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines vs. 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. having voluntarily terminated their employment relationship with PAL. Blooming Mills v. 2d 921]." as long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance of their interests.R. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground. it is worthwhile to observe that as the law defines it.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations As they did not assume the status of strikers. We further ruled in the Republic Savings Bank case. the issue of whether the retirement/resignation of ALPAP members on December 12.. 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'." 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. was as heretofore stated.  Petitioners cannot. are evident badges of bad faith. 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. 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. 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 courts cannot hopefully effectuate and vindicate the sound policies of the Industrial Peace Act and all our labor laws if employees. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted. under pain of dismissal. Sulpicio Lines (2004) A strike. 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. 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. the dispute below having been certified as existing in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 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. a strike means only a `temporary stoppage of work'. Martinez.  What the mentioned pilots did. the Philippine Air Lines. therefore. 1969. constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life of the workers and deserves severe condemnation. as defined in Article 212 (o) of the Labor Code. nepotism. validly claim that PAL committed an unfair labor practice because. N. The more the participants.M. Court of Industrial Relations. contrary to ALPAP [Gaston's] argument that the pilots' retirement/resignation was a legitimate concerted activity.M.  What they contemplated was evidently a permanent cut-off of employment relationship with their erstwhile employer. 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. for the obvious purpose of satisfying their narrow economic demands to the prejudice of the public interest. supra.L.  In any event. 875.  Definitely. 413 F. however. was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police  abuses. favoritism and discrimination in the appointment and promotion of bank employees." Such a concerted action for their mutual help and protection. to 2:00 P. Samahang Manggagawa v. particularly those who on account of their highly advanced technical background and relatively better life status are far above the general working class spectrum. their "protest retirement/resignation" was not a concerted activity which was protected by law [First National Bank of Omaha vs.

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

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

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. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages. (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. for the duration of the strike or lockout. in his opinion. Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. if not prevent. clinics or medical institutions. even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. 264 Prohibited activities. Art.  PROHIBITED STRIKES Art. 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. 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. however legitimate. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 93 of 139 . If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification. the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that. are indispensable to the national interest. Art. 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. In case of a lockout. the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume. in his opinion. damages and other affirmative relief. In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health. be avoided. most especially emergency cases.  In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals. The foregoing notwithstanding. 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. For this purpose. which may constitute union busting.  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.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations  However. whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted. In an effort to settle a strike. by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout.  In such cases. and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. therefore. strikes and lockouts in hospitals.  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. and all serious efforts. under pain of immediate disciplinary action.  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. jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. to every extent possible. the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders. not only by labor and management but government as well. even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. 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. clinics and similar medical institutions shall. where the existence of the union is threatened. there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. 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. through the exercise. That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment. their adverse effects on such life and health. 263 (g) When. 265 Improved offer balloting. prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission. be exhausted to substantially minimize. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients. within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout.

lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. as was the honest belief of herein petitioners.  However. detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof. 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. v. 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. 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. Again. no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is economic in nature. A no strike. (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. Strikes. been committed. Again. Nestle Philippines. i. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. 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. 6. declares that. shall continue to be recognized and respected. in fact. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. or other concerted activities of the employees or management. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or abitration. 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. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory. NLRC (1995) It has heretofore been held that a "no strike. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. 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. NLRC (1991) WAGE DISTORTION cannot be a ground for strike. 263.  In cases of unfair labor practice." Section 3 of Republic Act No. whether or not there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. as amended. thus. 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. consistent with the national interest. strikes. In this situation. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Inc. (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. Grand Labor Organization (2003) Under Art.. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has. Moreover. "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike /lockout. once an assumption certification order is issued by the SOLE. and not by strikes. 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. illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. thereby implicitly excluding. STRIKING PARTY Art. The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. " Grand Boulevard Hotel v. no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intraunion disputes. 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.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout. 13 Section 16. NO STRIKE CLAUSE Panay Electric Co. Chapter I of these implementing rules. after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration. strikes UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 94 of 139 . (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. picketing and lockouts. As this Court ruled in Union of Filipro Employees v. lockouts. to force wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. despite the issuance by the SOLE of an assumption or certification order. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. such a ruling is erroneous. 6727 prescribes a specific. under Article 264(a) of the said code. are enjoined or if one has already taken place. a strike that is undertaken. becomes a prohibited activity and. 263.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.e.

in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. which may constitute union busting. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. 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. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: f. the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. Art. g. where the existence of the union is threatened.  However. 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 x x x. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement.  it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. In cases of unfair labor practice. 264 Prohibited activities. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. (e) During the cooling-off period. (e) During the cooling-off period. i. In cases of unfair labor practice. 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. it shall be the duty of employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. h. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. which may constitute union busting. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. o 7. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. Art. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. which may constitute union busting. 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. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. OBSERVANCE COOLING-OFF PERIOD Art. where the existence of the union is threatened. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS EFFORT TO BARGAIN Art. where the existence of the union is threatened. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. If the dispute is not settled. and j.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations labor organization in behalf of its members. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice. However. 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. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 95 of 139 . (d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of Labor and Employment may promulgate. FILING OF NOTICE OF INTENTION Art.

In every case. Sulpicio Lines. 1994 when he was declared to have lost his employment status. However. The Court notes that petitioner Piñero turned 60 years old and retired on March 1. STRIKES. (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. notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: a. 1994. rendering his dismissal from service moot and academic. Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. In cases of unfair labor practice. 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. Pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code. he has no previous derogatory records. 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. 263. 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. (2004) The basic issue for our determination is whether the strike staged by petitioner’s officers and members is illegal. Inc. These requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. The Ministry may. Under the circumstances. as amended. PICKETING AND LOCKOUTS. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. NLRC (2004) There is no doubt that the strike staged by DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU is illegal for non-compliance with the strike-vote requirements. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws.  obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. Indeed. The Ministry (now Department) may at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. 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. 263 (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. 1996 after 29 years of service. 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 notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. however. CONDUCT OF AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY Art. which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened. c. 263. Piñero’s infraction is not so reprehensible nor unscrupulous as to warrant complete disregard of his long years of service. 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. However. 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. Equity considerations. at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. Art. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. o the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. in view of the propriety of his termination as a consequence of the illegal strike.  obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. x x x Piñero v. provide: “ART. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. 264 Prohibited activities. x x x. An employee who is dismissed for cause is generally not entitled to any financial assistance. provide an exception. Moreover. Under Art. (c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. 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. subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. v. 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.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. obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. subject to the cooling-off period herein UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 96 of 139 . Although meriting termination of employment. xxx VOTE. In every case. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. 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. 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.

should be filed with the DOLE.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations provided. 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. Strike or lockout vote.” 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. 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. and if the requisite number of votes is obtained. In the event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation proceedings. subject to the cooling-off period provided in this Rule. Inc. Inc. with the required contents. x x x. the same was incorporated in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and has the force and effect of law. and 3. supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. vs. 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. A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of strike. We thus hold that for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 263 (c) and (f) of the Labor Code. the parties shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. 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. ART. However. subject to the coolingoff period. at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. the strike mounted by petitioner union on May 20. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the employer. However. nevertheless. 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. in the case of union busting where the union’s existence is threatened. NLRC (2005) We agree with the petitioner that the respondent Union failed to comply with the second paragraph of Section 10. x x x. which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened. 5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB. The regional branch of the Board may. paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code. the union may hold a strike vote. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date. Thereafter. v. Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263. (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). In Gold City Integrated Port Service. the cooling-off period need not be observed. Following are the Implementing Guidelines of the above provisions issued by the Department of Labor and Employment: 1. if the parties refuse. 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.” Capitol Medical Center. 2. … Before a strike is actually 4) commenced. corporation or association or the partners obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.  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 . a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote. NLRC. which include the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB: 1) A notice of strike. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. a strike may ensue. a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting. 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. copy furnished the employer of the union. 264. Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC which reads: Section 10. specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB. if and when it decides to exercise its power of supervision. – 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. place and time of the meeting of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote. the NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the same. However. the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules. A strike vote shall be reported to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days before the intended strike. at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party. the NCMB. 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. There is no showing that the petitioner union observed the 7-day strike ban. through its conciliator-mediators. NLRC. In every case. In National Federation of Labor v.

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

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

since private respondent considered them separated from the service. 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. illegal and unlawful acts were committed by the petitioners. is that a mere claim of good faith would not justify the holding of a strike under the aforesaid exception as. petitioners staged a strike and picketed the company's premises. the submission of the results thereof to the National Conciliation and Meditation Board (NCMB). unjustified. DEFENSES – GOOD FAITH . The rights of labor have been expanded. the tension that fills the air as well as the feeling of frustration and bitterness could break out in sporadic acts of violence. as an unfair labor practice prohibited by Article 248 (e) of the Labor Code. if the employees believe in good faith that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to strike. and technical employees) or NMPTs (non-managerial. the filing of a notice to strike and the observance of the 15-ay cooling-off period. REASON FOR PENALTY LESS PUNITIVE THAN DISMISSAL Where a penalty less punitive would suffice. believed to discourage membership in the labor organization. (3) such discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice intended to discourage union membership. Such an approach is reflected in our recent decisions. (2) the union members honestly believed that they were discriminated against. in addition. the circumstances must have warranted such belief. they had not been paid. professional. Almira v. Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a reason to regard the salary discrimination. such allegations of unfair labor practices were found to be groundless. 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. It is even more important that reason and not violence should be its milieu.500 salary increase. even if no ULP acts are committed by the employer. subsequently. 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 . B. and technical employees). considering all the facts disclosed. to stamp the strike with illegality. it would be. NLRC (1998) In resolving that the strike was legal.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations This is not by any means to condone the utilization of force by labor to attain its objectives. in addition thereto. 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. since MPTs were non-union members. petitioners should not be deprived of their means of livelihood. however. An established caveat. and (4) the labor unions complied with the legal requirements before going on strike. If there be in this case a weighing of interests in the balance. however. although rejecting that PNOC and its subsidiaries were guilty of discrimination. his family to consider. The ways of the law are not to be ignored. where the union believed that the employer committed ULP and the circumstances warranted such belief in good faith. since the company practice in the past was to grant salary increases to all employees regardless of whether they were MPTs (managerial. As a general rule. therefore. Concern is evident for its welfare.ULP Interwood Employees Assoc. It is only to show awareness that in labor conflicts. The advantages thus conferred. 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. v. PNOC Dockyard v. then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal. In the course of the mass picketing. a strike based on a "non-strikeable" ground is an illegal strike: corollarily. Phils. to repeat. the resulting strike may be considered legal although. 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. It is. (1974) Due to the refusal of the management to consider petitioners' union as the exclusive bargaining representative. professional. There is. Nor is this to condone what had been done by them. 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. the advice of those conversant with the requirements of legal norms should be sought and should not be ignored. 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. Thus. It is enough that individual liability be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence that call for loss of employee status. call for attendant responsibilities. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. it is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman. Int’l Hardwood (1956) Generally. whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. Inc. For all this while.F. the ban the law imposes on unfair labor practices by management that could provoke a strike and its requirement that it be conducted peaceably. As an exception. Goodrich. therefore. Respondent CIR declared petitioners to have committed an illegal strike and dismissed the petitioners. a strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no such acts actually exist. such as the members' strike vote by secret ballot.

even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. San Juan de Dios (2004) Despite the receipt of an order from then SOLE to return to their respective jobs. justified in terminating UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 101 of 139 . 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. Effect of Illegality Art. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing factor for staging a strike. the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. The respondent Foundation was. 264 Prohibited activities.  However. the presumption of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is subsequently found to be untrue. (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. shall continue to be recognized and respected. which may constitute union busting. That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment. where the existence of the union is threatened. the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. ILLEGAL STRIKES Basis – Illegality Art.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout. consistent with the national interest.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations practice were committed by the employer. provided that the union and its members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment. 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. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks. 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. That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment."  Indeed. no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intraunion disputes. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws. picketing and lockouts. 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. 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. o However. San Juan de Dios etc. thus. Art. then.  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 board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the reduced offer. In an effort to settle a strike. v. the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent. 265 Improved offer balloting. even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. 263 Strikes. Consequently. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. 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. 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. Hence. 264 (a) Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. the dismissal of its officers is in order. Art. In case of a lockout.

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

On this score. "When employees voluntarily go on strike. since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees. 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. the offer must have been unconditional. We hold that where. however. that is from the day of their discharge. must nevertheless be denied reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of violence. order reinstatement much less back pay for that period. The salesmen. therefore. 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. it cannot. as explained on the subject of the strike. We are of the opinion that the considerations impelling our refusal to award back pay are no longer controlling. We shall advert again to the distinction earlier made between discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who struck. It cannot exercise its right beyond the point which the object of "effectuation" of the Act requires. 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. its discretion is not unbounded. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 103 of 139 . Coming now to the question of backpay. an employer refuses to reinstate strikers except upon their acceptance of new conditions that discriminate against them because of their union membership or activities. without back wages. On this score. 5 NLRB 443. considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. Discriminatorily dismissed employees receive back pay from the date of the act of discrimination.S. 1957. it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. v. We agree with the union that under the ruling of Phelps Dodge Corp. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants. On the other hand. 1957. (1964) We now come to the question of backpay. Hence. NLRB. 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 contrast. as in this case. During the time that the strike was an economic one. This being an unfair labor practice case. But that is not the case here. Hence their economic loss should not be shifted to the employer. 313 U. in view of the circumstances. Andrada and the salesmen may be justified. although discriminatorily discharged. albeit in protest against the company's unfair labor practice..Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations of the strikers and has promised them continued employment." While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work on March 14." We believe that the denial of backpay may be justified. 85 L. it has been our policy not to award them back pay during the strike. the award of backwages. must be excepted those who. While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts of violence. For this purpose. Marsman & Co. even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice. 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. were practically locked out when they were ordered to put their trucks in the garage. unless they have found substantial employment elsewhere during the pendency of this case. For while the Court of Industrial Relations has indeed discretion in determining the remedy in case of unfair labor practice. The stoppage of their work was not the direct consequence of the company's unfair labor practice. the award of backpay to Gaddi. that is from the day of their discharge. the rest of the employees struck as a voluntary act of protest against what they considered unfair labor practices of the company. 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. As explained by the NLRB in the case of American Manufacturing Co. From this rule. 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.   Consolidated Labor Assoc. We find that their offer was conditional. The same thing may be said of the denial of reinstatement to those who might have found substantial employment elsewhere. ed. vs. In an economic strike. as none had so far been committed. although on a different ground.  Accordingly. The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice with respect to such time. the pay from the date of the act of discrimination.  However. 1271 the mere fact that strikers or dismissed employees have found such employment elsewhere is not necessarily a bar to their reinstatement. the strikers are not entitled to backpay. even if in protest against unfair labor practices. 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. as already stated. 177. It can not order the reinstatement of those convicted of violence upon the employer's property. they did not voluntarily strike. complainants had no right to back pay. the decision under review directs the company "to reinstate all the strikers listed in Annex 'A' of the complaint.

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). that is. 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. 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. considering that the situation was not a direct consequence of the employer's lockout or unfair labor practice. the SSS. Engaged in it are human beings whose feelings are stirred to the depths. as likewise submitted by the Solicitor General. a situation which warrants the maintenance of the status quo. the 114 strikers employees who participated therein are liable for termination. L. unless of course the laborer was able. and therefore the latter could not be deemed to have condoned petitioner's lockout. however. NLRC (1982) The finding of illegal strike was not disputed. is the principle of "no work. In case of a lockout. p. must have been in the contemplation of the Congress when it provided in Sec." With such restoration of the status quo ante it necessarily follows." Phil.  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. 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. Security Bank and Trust Co. Suffice it to say that the 150 strikers acted for themselves. willing and ready to work but "as illegally locked out. the rights afforded to employees by the Act would indeed be illusory. 265 Improved offer balloting. More so. dismissed or suspended. the failure to work on the part of the members of respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to themselves. If this were not co. however much it is to be regretted. it is but fair that each party must bear his own loss. the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement 9. This means that the contending parties must be brought back to their respective positions before the controversy. and that the stoppage of the work was not the direct consequence of the company's lockout or unfair labor practice. 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." In this case. 'the economic loss should not be shifted to the employer. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer's time. 163.  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. But neither should the burden of the economic loss suffered by them be shifted to their employer.03 PICKETING 1. 13 of Act 29 USCA Sec. thus placing the parties in equal footing where none should profit front the other there being no fault of either. v. 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. Therefore. Employees v. R. (1968) UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 104 of 139 . 378) Security Bank Employees Union v. The transformation from economic to physical combat by those engaged in the contest is difficult to prevent even when cool heads direct the fight. 107 F2d 472." "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.' Justice and equity demand that each must have to bear its own loss. not in behalf of the 114 remaining strikers. 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. Rising passions call forth hot words. in view of the undisputed finding of illegality of the strike. that nothing therein should be construed so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike. therefore. Insular Life Assurance Co. that the parties had no hand or participation in the situation they were in.' If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay. Interfashion v. (1971) The heated altercations and occasional blows exchanged on the picket line do not affect or diminish the right to strike. cited in Mathews. Therefore. no pay" applicable to the case at bar. On the other hand. Ltd. Ltd. before the strike. B.Part IX : Concerted Activities Labor Relations SSS v. Under the circumstances. Violence of this nature. A strike is essentially a battle waged with economic weapons. Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes Art. The findings show that both petitioner and the 114 strikers are in pari delicto. Petitioner. the 114 employees affected by the lockout are also subject to reinstatement. In an effort to settle a strike. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE Insular Life Assurance Co. Therefore. 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.. the order reinstating the 114 employees is proper. Hot words lead to blows on the picket line. the finding of illegal lockout was likewise not disputed. "Considering." Republic Steel Corp. N. which was equally faultless. Labor Relations and the Law.

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

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

Moreover. et al. It is to be noted that in the instances cited. And the reason for this is not farfetched. 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 contention of appellants that the court erred in denying their motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech. Thus. 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. Don Ramon Roces. it is well to cite and stress the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the right to picket. The instant case falls squarely under the provisions of Article 1664of the New Civil Code which provides as follows:  "Art. among others. If there is a connection between appellee publishing company and the Permanent Concrete Products company. and not against the appellant Union. to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract. nor with the company against whom the strikers staged the strike. The picket is merely regulated to protect the rights of third parties. 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. is likewise without merit. peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated. legally extend the same. and therefore.  Article 1654 of the New Civil Code cited by the appellants in support of their motion to dismiss. At this juncture. In one case decided by this Court. 854. 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. Tan."  We find and hold that there is no connection between the appellee Liwayway Publications. however. This should not be allowed to happen. and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. vs. 562. including those with related interest. no connection was found other than their being situated in the same premises. Although sustained on a different ground. that "with regard to activities that may be enjoined. 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 right is. 1664. it is that both are situated in the same premises. personnel manager. 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. men will endeavor to safeguard their rights by their own might. 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. 34 Phil. entitled to protection by the regular courts. and neither are the acts of the driver of the appellee. PAFLU's right to peacefully picket METBANK is not curtailed by the injunctions issued by respondent judge. 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. it is necessary to determine the nature of the controversy. and commit acts which lead to breaches of the law." 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'. it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. not an absolute one. If the law fails to afford said protection. in order to ascertain what court has jurisdiction to issue the injunction. If peacefully carried out. There is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatever. Cloribel. but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. which obliges the lessor. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 107 of 139 . therefore. Thus. 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.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. Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). is not in point. accordingly. the union members intimidating and threatening with bodily harm the employees of the appellee who were in the truck.  In such a factual situation. its general manager. and the striking Union. the appellee publishing company should have brought its complaint against the first sublessee. 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. They are entitled to seek protection of their rights from the courts and the courts may." their own hands. And in one American case. 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. in the case of PAFLU vs. 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. Inc. Roces. 99 Phil. the query to be resolved is whether the appellee is a third party or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been invaded and.

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

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. The foregoing ancillary power exercised by the Labor Arbiters: may be UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 109 of 139 . Sec. injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive rights or interest. Injunction in Ordinary Labor Dispute. as amended. Furthermore. v. and not a mere theoretical question or issue. an adjunct to a main suit.01 DEFINITION AND NATURE INJUNCTION: An injunction is available as a remedy for harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. From the foregoing provisions of law. fixing.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. NLRC (1998) GENERALLY. Inc. 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. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy. either at law or in equity.  BUT excluding labor disputes involving strikes or lockout. or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. Why does injunction not apply to the facts of this case? In the present case. or arranging the terms and conditions of employment regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. it is an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT that: there must first be a LABOR DISPUTE between the contending parties before the labor arbiter." The term "CONTROVERSY” is likewise defined as "a litigated question. it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. 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. that is. A defendant who violates an injunction is subject to penalty for contempt." as defined above which would necessitate the issuance of the injunction sought for. the power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ originates from "any labor dispute" upon application by a party thereof. which application if not granted "may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. Article 218 of the Labor Code empowers the NLRC: e. when it is established on the bases of the sworn allegations in the petition that the acts complained of. adequate and complete remedy at law." Taking into account the foregoing definitions. which. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action rather than to compensate for an injury that has already been occurred." 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. the alleged injury which private respondents stand to suffer by reason of their alleged illegal dismissal can be adequately compensated and therefore. changing. Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is no plain. the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. a civil action or suit. . In the case at bar. there exists no "irreparable injury.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations Part X : LABOR INJUNCTION 10. 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. maintaining. a) involving or arising from any labor dispute before the Commission. if not restrained or performed forthwith. b) if not restrained or performed forthwith. 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. 1. 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.  Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from employment shall be  Complementing the above-quoted provision. (Webster) Philippine Airlines. Rule XI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. 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. 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." 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. 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. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. a justiciable dispute. pertinently provides as follows: Section 1. adversary proceeding in a court of law.

That as to each item of relief to be granted. in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath. and to the payment of full backwages. "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served. a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable. association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof. and testimony in opposition thereto. 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. mediation and arbitration. and" 3) 10. fixing. continued unless restrained but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat. inclusive of allowances. without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. 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. That complainant has no adequate remedy at law. injunctions may be issued only in cases of extreme necessity based on legal grounds clearly established.  regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. 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. 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. to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations entitled to reinstatement. prohibited or unlawful act." b) there is "TESTIMONY under OATH. 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. 2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow. sufficient. 212 (l) ‘LABOR DISPUTE’ includes any controversy or matters:  concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or  representation of persons in negotiating. if sustained. in such manner as the Commission shall direct. 4) (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party:  Provided. except against the person or persons. greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief. 218 Powers of the Commission. a) the complainant "shall also allege that. if not restrained or performed forthwith." 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. unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice. maintaining. are clearly absent in the present case. however. to all known persons against whom relief is sought. changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. — 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. however. except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this code.  Thus. 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 .02 GENERAL RULE –PROHIBITION Art. and only after a finding of fact by the commission. with opportunity for cross-examination. if offered." d) No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except ART. after due consultations or hearing and when all efforts at conciliation are exhausted which factors. Art.

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 . 10 of Republic Act No. v. 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. What is sought to be tried in Civil Case No. 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. According to SC what Judge Tabigne stated during said hearing should be construed what actually it was — an advice. To deny the victim of the wrongful levy. Will disobedience to the judge’s advice constitute contempt of court? No. Purpose of an injunction in an UNCERTIFIED case: As a corollary to this. he specifically advised the employees NOT TO GO ON strike.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. 10 of Republic Act No. GENERAL RULE: there can be no injunction issued against any strike.  The private respondents are not parties to the said NLRC case. 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. 875." 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. further. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. To sustain petitioners' theory will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences and lend judicial imprimatur to deprivation of property without due process of law. 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. It does not seek to enjoin the execution of the decision against the properties of the judgment debtor. above-mentioned. especially one which is not certified in accordance with Sec.  This has no application to the case at bar. that is. 2749 is whether the NLRC's decision and writ of execution." Petitioners' reliance on the provision of Art. 2749 is one which neither "involves" nor "grows out" of a labor dispute. under the pretext that no court of general jurisdiction can interfere with the writ of execution issued in a labor dispute. of which hearing complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice. Civil Case No. No. much less the writ of execution issued thereunder. 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. 2749 does not put in issue either the fact or validity of the proceeding in the NLRC case nor the decision therein rendered. expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction. EXCEPT in only one instance. 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. 875. CIR (72) RATIONALE for prohibition: 1) It is well known that the scheme in Republic Act No. What 'involves' or 'grow out' of a labor dispute is the NLRC case between petitioners and the judgment debtor. 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. On this premise the lawmaking body has virtually prohibited the issuance of injunctive relief involving or growing out of labor disputes. Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assoc. National Mines and Allied Workers v. together with a reasonable attorney's fee. 9(d) of Republic Act No. and not of the judgment debtor named in the NLRC decision and writ of execution. the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. Civil Case. 875. 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. an injunction in an uncertified case must be based on the strict requirements of Sec. Such a recourse is allowed under the provisions of Section 17. the purpose of such an injunction is not to enjoin the strike itself. unhampered as far as possible by judicial or administrative intervention. In this case Judge Tabigne cautioned the parties to “maintain the status quo”. 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. To say that it was an order would be to concede that respondent court could validly enjoin a strike. 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. including all reasonable costs. 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. the recourse such as that availed of by the herein private respondents. Philippine Iron Mines. but only unlawful activities.

the petitioner’s complaint revolves around the issue of his alleged dismissal from service and his claim for backwages.:  if not restrained or performed forthwith. as modes of settling labor and industrial disputes.  In fact. 218 (e) Above ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER ( Book V Rule XXI sec. Generally. the respondents contend that the issue has become academic since the CA had already decided the case on its merits. 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. 264 Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. an injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of a person’s substantive rights or interests. and the procedure to be followed in issuing the same. is freedom at the workplace. . 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. Certainly. Further. that could not have been the intendment of the law creating the NLRC. 10. 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.03 EXCEPTIONS – WHEN INJUCTION ALLOWED See Arts. and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction. mediation and conciliation. 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. Eastern Marine refused to re-hire him. . an appendage to the main suit. the respondents’ petition contains facts sufficient to warrant the issuance of an injunction under Article 218. 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. It is more appropriate in the promotion of the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations. The Court finds that the respondent Commission had acted entirely in accord with applicable provisions of the Labor Code. . During that time. . Besides. CA issued a preliminary injunction. The Labor Arbiter found that Petitioner was not illegally dismissed. 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. It bears stressing that in the present case. It is not a cause of action in itself but a mere provisional remedy. and (b) that on the entire showing from the contending parties. It did not involve the fixing of terms or conditions of employment or representation of persons with respect thereto. The law proscribes the issuance of injunctive relief only in those cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. On the other hand. the injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. respondents had already posted a surety bond more than adequate to cover the judgment award. the restraining order had been improperly issued. damages and attorney’s fees." 10. The petitioner asserts that the CA violated Article 254 of the Labor Code when it issued a temporary restraining order.04 ISSUING AGENCY 1. even assuming the contrary. Pressing necessity requires that it should be resorted to only to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any measure of consideration. .  The case before the NLRC neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute. EXCEPTIONS: Article 264 lists down specific "prohibited activities" which may be forbidden or stopped by a restraining order or injunction. he was hit by a stray bullet on his left leg which caused permanent injury. 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. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER See Art. Shortly after the termination of his latest contract. Moreover.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations question. 218(e). Ravago v. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party . including voluntary arbitration. Article 254 of the Labor Code specifically provides that the NLRC may grant injunctive relief under Article 218 thereof. Held: The petitioner’s reliance on Article 25 [of the Labor Code is misplaced. 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 . basically. 254. he was granted a vacation leave. On appeal. NLRC reversed. paragraph (e) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Eastern Marine Ltd (2005) Facts: Petitioner is a seafarer who was hired on a contractual basis. 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.

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

" This constitutional imprimatur given to the right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor. the Office of the Solicitor General concurs. In the Philippine milieu where social justice remains more as a rhetoric than a reality. in the premises. the public respondent. Hence. Again. 1992.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations subsequently denied by the Commission. and peaceful concerted activities. the constitutional recognition of the right to strike does serve as a reminder that injunctions. No irregularity may thus be imputed to the respondent Commission in the issuance of that order. In view of the foregoing factual and legal considerations. 1992. (a) Petitioner union did not receive any copy of private respondent's petition for injunction in Case No. the temporary restraining order had a lifetime of only twenty (20) days and became void ipso facto at the expiration of that period. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the questioned Order of preliminary injunction. 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. 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. In the wise words of Father Bernas.. (4) and (5) of the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5. the factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no concurrence of the five (5) prerequisites mandated by Art. including the right to strike in accordance with law.J. In the case at bar. 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. it must be said. guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. Its address as alleged by the private respondent turned out to be "erroneous". 1953. In light of the genesis of the right to strike. 1989. it. 218(e) of the Labor Code. (d) Knowledge of the Order came to the petitioner  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 114 of 139 .. 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. collective bargaining and negotiations. and that it faithfully observed the procedure and complied with the conditions for the exercise of that power prescribed in said sub-paragraph (e). on June 17. 2. in its counter-petition that there was. otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. It may be that in highly developed countries. 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. Its struggle to gain the right to strike has not been easy and effortless. . a copy of the Order was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner. the petitioner was denied the right to attend the hearing held on April 13. the significance of strike as a coercive weapon has shrunk in view of the preference for more peaceful modes of settling labor disputes. on the same day April 13. the fundamental law of our land (1987 Constitution) mandated the State to ". first direct SMC Labor Arbiter Carmen Talusan to receive SMC's testimonial evidence in support of the application and thereafter submit her recommendation thereon. on notice. v. the records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e)." Moreover. (b) Consequently. 1992 while the private respondent enjoyed a field day presenting its evidence ex parte. 1992. however. In any event. temporarily enjoined the petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts. 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." and d. the latter's submittal. For the first time in our constitutional history."  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. Congress gave statutory recognition to the right to strike when it enacted RA 875. (c) On the basis of uncontested evidence. Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional status to the right to strike RA 6715 came into being on March 21. labor has vigilantly fought to safeguard the sanctity of the right to strike. 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. should be reduced to the barest minimum". S. 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. 000249-92 filed on April 8. it found SMC's evidence adequate and issued the temporary restraining order upon bond. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS Bisig ng Manggagawa. the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against striking employees. it ought to be obvious that the right should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of labor. an intentional replication of RA 875.

 However. and to date. for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike. In the case of petitioner. In the petition for injunction itself. 3. the deleterious effects of a wrongfully issued. A more becoming sense of fairness. When that happens. yet. petitioners alleged that the PCIBEU-Comelec was illegally constituted. and correctly did not. — 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. 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 . 38 Phil. 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. For instance. The disparate treatment is inexplicable considering that the subject matters of their petition are of similar importance to the parties and to the public. the Secretary of Labor. Rule XVI. experience shows that ex parte applications for restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed truths. 1992 and it was granted on the same day. he cannot. There is no question that the issuance of a temporary restraining order is addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-Arbiter. when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is. 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. In the instant controversy. i. 585). While it is true that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to issue a writ of preliminary injunction. 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. or a temporary restraining order against any act arising from any case pending before him. if not restrained forthwith." In the case of labor injunctions or temporary restraining orders. 1992. To be sure. This is as it ought to be. if to do so would result in manifest injustice. The Med-Arbiter should ascertain that the act complained of. turn a blind eye to the arbitrary and haphazard manner by which the Med-Arbiter issued the subject temporary restraining order. Stated otherwise. its prayer for an ex parte temporary restraining order was heard on April 13. Its petition for preliminary injunction was filed on April 30. Abalanson. demands that such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by hearing officers. 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. 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. our constitutional policy of protecting labor becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. They announced their candidates and actively campaigned for them. 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.. they unhesitatingly participated in the preelection process. 1992. lest. Thus. should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of EXTREME NECESSITY. Moreover. 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. may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case. ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple monetization. the public respondent should not be shackled by stringent rules. one may issue only in instances where the complainant or applicant will suffer grave or irreparable damages as provided in Sec. 5. This equalizing stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents.e. On the other hand. Sadly contrasting is the haste with which public respondents heard and acted on a similar petition for injunction filed by the private respondent. however. 1992. INJUNCTION AND MED-ARBITER Dinio v.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. Laguesma (1997) In the performance of his duties. therefore. petitioners even stated that they filed their certificates of candidacy in compliance with the directives of the PCIBEUComelec. Its issuance. 1992. 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. the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. the records do not reveal whether the public respondent has granted or denied the same. the Office of the President.  Often times. bereft of an adequate remedy at law. Injunctions. the exercise thereof shall always be subject to the test of reasonableness. they unduly tilt the balance of a labor warfare in favor of capital. In the case of the private respondent. its petition for injunction was filed on April 24. the Commission. and was granted on May 5. "this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. even though this issue was not explicitly raised by private respondents. Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: Sec 5.

if not restrained or performed forthwith. to say the least. or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction." and as a general reminder: There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution. 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.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations reasonable accuracy. Procedure for issuance of TRO is different from procedure of issuance of Injunction. 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. 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. "(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted. May 30. when the election materials were already readied and the other mechanics for election had already been threshed out. it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury. if offered. to the effect: II. and sound discretion. Bayona. 264) -Provided. so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction. the allegations of the acts committed are different from the allegations of acts committed under Art. 264. 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. BUT the procedure to follow is the same. the injury impending or threatened. The right must be clear. greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief. et al. the damage that would result would substantially be more. where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath. 218 and Art. except after hearing the testimony of witnesses. and testimony in opposition thereto. — The Commission shall have the power and authority: I.The similarity is in the testimony given. Art. it is not susceptible of mathematical computation (SSC vs. with opportunity for crossexamination. . D.But TRO is different because it is valid only for 20 days. ALLEGATIONS FOR ART. It is well to remember that "injunctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor relations policy. association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof. 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. 264 . 2. prohibited or unlawful act. deliberation. -which. Labor Injunction is not the same as the injunction under the rules of court. 218 Powers of the Commission.If you are filing injunction under Art. "(4) That complainant adequate remedy and" (5) has no at law. and only after a finding of fact by the commission. General rule is stated in Art.. (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. except against the person or persons. 1962). B. that is. Measured against such test. 4. DISINI: 1. 254 . 218. 3. 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. 218. L-13555. . ART. C. On the contrary. should the election be postponed to another indefinite time. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 116 of 139 . "(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow. an administrative remedy available and convenient to the parties in the case.The exceptions are in Art.

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. 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. A. . 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." No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that . VI. expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction.and also to the Chief Executive and ." b) there is "TESTIMONY under OATH.Part X : Labor Injunction Labor Relations E.to all known persons against whom relief is sought.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. III. the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice. PERSONAL NOTICE To whom : "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served. including all reasonable costs. V. .a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable. if sustained." c) d) IV. together with a reasonable attorney's fee. in such manner as the Commission shall direct."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. however." 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.  a) PROCEDURE for issuance Temporary Restraining Order Provided. further. to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. 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. the complainant "shall also allege that. . of which hearing complainant and surety UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 117 of 139 . sufficient.

Or this may be stipulated in a submission agreement when they are actually confronted by a dispute. Being part of a contract between the parties. which agreement would be void. it is binding and enforceable in court in case one of them neglects. provided they are not contrary to law. such that where a suit has been 11. public order or public policy. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call. In fact. Whatever be the case. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. The rule now is that unless the agreement is such as absolutely to close the doors of the courts against the parties.." In such a case. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. "Said Act was obviously adopted to supplement-not to supplant-the New Civil Code on arbitration. morals. in the event that they declare their intention to refer their differences to arbitration first before taking court action. c. 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. 2. was passed. ARBITRATION 11. this constitutes a condition precedent. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. exercising their basic freedom to "establish such stipulations. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. DOLE UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 118 of 139 . CA (1992) As early as the 1920's. otherwise known as the Arbitration Law. Book IV of the Civil Code shall remain in force. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining.02 CONCILIATION – AS PART OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS Art." But certainly. the attitude of the courts toward arbitration agreements is slowly crystallizing into definite and workable form . 233 Privileged communication. Title XIV. absent an agreement of the parties to resolve their disputes via a particular mode. the parties may opt for recourse to third parties.” That there was a growing need for a law regulating arbitration in general was acknowledged when Republic Act No. resort to the arbitration process may be spelled out by them in a contract in anticipation of disputes that may arise between them.04 IN GENERAL Chung Fu Industries v. 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. Art. this Court declared: "In the Philippines fortunately. and e. NCMB. If the dispute is not settled. Declaration of Policy. It expressly declares that' the provisions of chapters one and two. d. Sec. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. 1985. fails or refuses to arbitrate. the stipulation to refer all future disputes to an arbitrator or to submit an ongoing dispute to one is valid.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. Going a step further. 1987 Constitution. it is the regular courts that remain to resolve such matters. 876 (1953). thus: ". 1008.01 POLICY Art. the early cases on arbitration carefully spelled out the prevailing doctrine at the time. . good customs. terms and conditions as they may deem convenient." In recognition of the pressing need for an arbitral machinery for the early and expeditious settlement of disputes in the construction industry. including conciliation. the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes. . 211. such recourse to an extrajudicial means of settlement is not intended to completely deprive the courts of jurisdiction. 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. However. enacted on February 4. 11. In practice nowadays. a Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) was created by Executive Order No.03 CONCILIATION AGENCY – NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD Read: CONCILIATORS HANDBOOK.. clauses. (e)To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board. XIII. 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. CONCILIATION 11.

courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses.000. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups (2003) Held: Essentially.00) or forty-percent (40%) of the paid-up capital of the respondent employer. arbitration -. v. 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. Held: Sec 1 of Article II of the old Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration indeed required the submission of a request for arbitration.  LM Power Engineering Corp.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” . It is stated explicitly under Art. because the awards are still judicially reviewable under certain conditions. whichever is lower. It is thus regarded as the “wave of the future” in international civil and commercial disputes." 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. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. may be appealed to the NLRC on any of the following grounds: (a) abuse of discretion. It stands to reason. involving an amount exceeding One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100. In a special civil action of certiorari.  Clearly. by the nature of their functions. arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes."16 Under the original Labor Code. conciliation and negotiation -. modifying or rescinding an arbitrator's award. 2039 and 2040 applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations instituted prematurely. the pivotal inquiry is whether subject arbitration award is indeed beyond the ambit of the court's power of judicial review. thus:  "Any stipulation that the arbitrator's award or decision shall be final is valid. an order to arbitrate should be granted. Being an inexpensive. and (b) gross incompetence. the court shall suspend the same and the parties shall be directed forthwith to proceed to arbitration. However. voluntary arbitration awards or decisions were final. act in a quasi-judicial capacity. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration. It is to be borne in mind. voluntary arbitration awards or decisions on money claims. 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 . unappealable and executory? Article 2044 of the Civil Code recognizes the validity of such stipulation.  For "the writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and that certiorari jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. as follows. 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. The instant case involves technical discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body that has expertise in those areas. without prejudice to Articles 2038. assuming arguendo that the dispute is arbitrable."  Similarly. that their decisions should not be beyond the scope of the power of judicial review of this Court. however. 2044 of the Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators' award is not absolute and without exceptions. Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets. 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. 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. 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. speedy and amicable method of settling disputes. that voluntary arbitrators. there are grounds for vacating. According to petitioner. With the subsequent deletion of the abovecited provision from the Labor Code. We rule in the negative. the dispute arose from the parties’ incongruent positions on whether certain provisions of their Agreement could be applied to the facts. under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law.  In any event. It should be stressed too. therefore.is encouraged by the Supreme Court.  Where the conditions described in Articles 2038. may the parties who agree to submit their disputes to arbitration further provide that the arbitrators' award shall be final. unappealable and executory. the arbitrators' award may be annulled or rescinded. 2039 and 2040. Under present law. 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.  Additionally. A court action may likewise be proper where the arbitrator has not been selected by the parties. "However." Even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared "final" by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted. Where the parties agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable as in the instant case. especially of the commercial kind. The Subcontract of the parties contain an arbitration clause. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward. 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.

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

thru arbitration by the industrial court. 356. after finding that it adversely affected the national interest. therefore. 1973 Constitution. It cannot be denied that the private respondent is engaged in an undertaking UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 123 of 139 . He has not rendered any decision. namely. An instance of unconstitutional application would be discernible if what is ordained by the fundamental law. II." As contended by the SolGen. compulsory arbitration. while allowable under the [1973] Constitution. . 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. CIR (1971) The purpose of a presidential certification is nothing more than to bring about soonest. and quite understandable in labor disputes affected with a national interest. The inconsistencies between what was sought by private respondent. the labor dispute adversely affected the national interest. Phil. 263(g) of the Labor Code. that the power of compulsory arbitration. However. It may also be added that due to petitioner's intransigent refusal to attend the conciliation conferences called after the union struck. 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. Hopkins. the protection of law." [Yick Wo v. He was authorized by law to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The arbiter then is called upon to take due care that in the decision to be reached. except as it may become necessary to determine whether or not the agreement forged by the parties is not contrary to law. 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. Naturally. 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. Noriel(1988) In the opinion of Acting Secretary Noriel." [Art." and violates the freedom of expression of workers engaged in picketing. That the regular courts have no jurisdiction over labor disputes and to issue injunctions against strikes is well-settled. 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. must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional mandate of protection to labor.S.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations declaration be preserved. affecting as it did some 9. is ignored or disregarded. 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. 372 (1886). Petitioner contends that the Acting Secretary erred when he found that the strike staged by respondent union and its members. 9. security of tenure. collective bargaining. 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 RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case filed by some PSBA students. to be free from the taint of unconstitutionality. The exercise of the power. if one of the parties fails to live up to such a norm. School of Business Administration v. It is. there is no violation of "the rights of workers to selforganization. "in utter subversion of the constitutional rights of workers. cannot be countenanced. the Court finds that no error was made by the Acting Secretary. and the failure to admit the striking employees back to work in the meantime. Manila Cordage Company v.]  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. This power is expressly granted by Art. so that the damage such employer-worker dispute might cause upon the national interest may be minimized as much as possible. Sec. 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. The Solicitor General was correct when he stated that by assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute. "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. morals or public policy. and just and humane conditions of work.  Acting Secretary Noriel did exactly what he was supposed to do under the Labor Code. he has not favored one party over the other. to be in full accord with the 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. 118 U. who had already been restrained by the RTC from picketing and barricading the main gate of the school. before the court is able to use its good offices.] It does not even have to go that far. PROCESS INITIATION – CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE 1) Initiating Party a) Secretary DOLE b) President Union of Filipino Employees v. .000 students. As noted earlier. was a fit subject of a return to work order. must be with a view to the protection of labor:  . It must be stressed anew. 3. involving as it does a labor dispute over which the labor agencies had exclusive jurisdiction.

this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to  all questions and controversies arising therefrom. vs. 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. Moreover.  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. “the fundamental normative rule that jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause . For the same reason. Secretary of DOLE (1992) The foregoing provisions persuade us that the Secretary did not gravely abuse his discretion when he issued the questioned orders. the Secretary would not be able to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute.  However." Plainly. This is evident from the opening proviso therein reading "(e)xcept as otherwise provided under this Code . Moreover. the decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. but would also have favorable implications to the community and to the economy as a whole.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. 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. In this case. As early as 1913. Under this situation. et al. The authority to decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. the Secretary's certification order for compulsory arbitration which was intended for the immediate formulation of an already delayed CBA was proper. but contemplates. subject to certain conditions. this should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. under his visitorial powers. 217 is not without. Int’l Pharmaceuticals Inc. 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. In fine. We said that to uphold the Secretary would empower him. Otherwise. the proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration In labor cases. the Secretary was explicitly granted by Art. "(i)t is fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it. What is compulsory arbitration? "When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions.  As we have said. the exclusive and original jurisdiction of which belongs to the labor arbiter. 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. its authority did not include the power to amend the Secretary's order. Petitioner argues that because of the public respondent's actuation in this regard. it being beyond the scope of the certification order.  As the implementing body. this Court laid down in Herrera vs. wherein we referred to the Sec of Labor appropriate labor arbiter a case previously decided by the Secretary. Inc. Art.000. In view of the avowed but limited purpose of respondent's assumption of jurisdiction over this compulsory arbitration case.00. the Secretary invoked his visitorial and enforcement powers to assume jurisdiction over the ease. it committed grave abuse of discretion as it allowed multiplicity of suits and splitting causes of action which are barred by procedural rule. 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. taken conjointly and rationally construed to subserve the objective of the jurisdiction vested in the Secretary. Baretto.  including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. v. Necessarily. to hear and decide an employee's claim of UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 124 of 139 . and decide the same accordingly. 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. exceptions thereto. the NLRC was thereby charged with the task of implementing the certification order for compulsory arbitration. 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. it cannot be faulted in not taking cognizance of other matters that would defeat this purpose. Corollary. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. 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. . When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by the Secretary of Labor. Article 263(g) was meant to make both the Secretary (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction. In the present case. 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.  In Servando. Its function only is to formulate the terms and conditions of the CBA and cannot go beyond the scope of the order. Our pronouncement on this point should be distinguished from the situation which obtained and our consequent ruling in Servando's. . rather than defeat it.the right to act in a case.

Secretary of Labor and Employment. . failing in this." that "the continued disruption in the operation of the University will necessarily prejudice the thousand of students". overruled him. much less curtail. ARBITRATION AGENCIES St. . But the conflict is only apparent. ". . the Secretary has been conferred jurisdiction over cases which would otherwise be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters. not real. It has no other alternative. The issue on whether respondent SECRETARY has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies.  The seeming difference is." To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the President under the law. 4.000. was already settled in International Pharmaceuticals. What matters is that by virtue of the certification made by the President the case was placed under the jurisdiction of said court. cited by petitioner. 1960). Inc. therefore. This is the power that the law gives to the President the propriety of its exercise being a matter that only devolves upon him. Scholastica’s College v. Rizal Cement Workers Union (FFW). 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. And so. R. and decide the same accordingly. The jurisdiction of the CIR in a certified case is exclusive (Rizal Cement Co. the same must be involved in the labor dispute itself. All phases of the labor dispute and the employer-employee relationship may be threshed out before 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. . or. We ruled that: ".Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations more than P5. and that "the dispute affects the national interest". G. which was. Therein. 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. [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. It can throw the case out in the assumption that the certification was erroneous. The fact. over which the Secretary assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code." At first glance. when the President took into consideration that the University "has some 18.. Since the matter on the legality or illegality of the strike was never submitted to him for resolution. b. L-12747. 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. Thus the court may take either of the following courses: a. and the CIR may issue such order or orders as may be necessary to make effective the exercise of its jurisdiction. causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. There was an existing labor dispute as a result of a deadlock in the negotiation for a CBA and the consequent strike. July 30.  The parties involved in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court from the order or orders thus issued by the CIR.000 students and employed approximately 500 faculty members.  The three NLRC cases were just offshoots of the stalemate in the negotiations and the strike.. We held that he could not do that and we. vs. it may issue an order forbidding employees to strike or the employer to lockout its employees.00. therefore. and certified the dispute to the CIR. Inc. therefore. 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. the rulings above stated seem to run counter to that of PAL v. In the present case. however. Necessarily. et al. reconcilable.  Once the jurisdiction is acquired pursuant to the presidential certification. however. Before the Secretary of Labor and Employment may take cognizance of an issue which is merely incidental to the labor dispute. including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. 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 exercise of that prerogative.  To recall. however. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 125 of 139 .  We. this authority to assume jurisdictional over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. by virtue of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Secretary or Labor and Employment. it may issue an order fixing the terms and conditions of employment. 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. and this Court will not interfere in. The same is not the concern of the industrial court. Feati University v. the CIR may exercise its broad powers as provided in Commonwealth Act 103. in the instant case. or otherwise submitted to him for resolution.

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

The mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return-to-work order. it is the national economy that will suffer because of the resultant reduction in our export earnings and our dollar reserves. is the management required to keep his position open. it has balked at the demand of the remaining workers to be also allowed to return to work. The worker can of course give up his work. 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. 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. with the return-to-work order following as a matter of course under the law. as most of the workers have done. 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. Its reason is that these persons. 263 that the moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest.  By so doing. these strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted. In the instant case. More particularly. thus severing his ties with the company. In this connection. insisted on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketed the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations. petitioners refused to acknowledge this directive of the Secretary of Labor on September 8. (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 . the ATC submits. but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike. if he does not want to obey the order. they will also claim payment for work not done. Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. Worse. and while as a right it may be waived. 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.  It was not even necessary for the Secretary of Labor to issue another order directing them to return to work. Gotamco Sawmills. 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.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. 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. even if the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order. not to mention possible cancellation of the contracts of the company with foreign importers. Accordingly. such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. the Court holds that the returnto-work order should benefit only those workers who complied therewith and.  Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty. 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. instead of complying with the return-to-work order. for the purpose precisely is to maintain the status quo while the determination is being made. If the worker refuses to obey the return-towork order. on the ground that they are still legally employed although actually engaged in activities inimical to their employer's interest.  However. as this Court held in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. CA (2000) It is clear from Art. Article 264(a) of the Labor Code clearly provides that: Article 264. stoppage of work in the firm will be hurtful not only to both the employer and the employees." 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. 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. and so could be validly replaced. Prohibited Activities. and to immediately return to work but which directive the herein petitioners opted to ignore. 1995 thereby necessitating the issuance of another order expressly directing the striking workers to cease and desist from their actual strike.  Conversely. and has in fact already done so.  Otherwise. 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. having abandoned their positions. regardless of the outcome of the compulsory arbitration proceedings. It was particularly for the purpose of avoiding such a development that the labor dispute was certified to the NLRC. That is the real reason such return can be compelled. are entitled to be paid for work they have actually performed.

or the Regional Director. or the Labor Arbiter. workers forfeited their right to. 4) A return-to-work order may be appealed but even pending appeal the return-to-work order must still be followed. 263 Strikes. that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike. Art. that: UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 128 of 139 .. The Honorable Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. The necessary consequence thereof are also detailed by the Supreme Court in its various rulings. Tuico) 3) A return-to-work order must be complied with as a matter of duty not just a right. the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute. the return to work order is an integral part of the assumption of jurisidiction.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties. 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. To ensure speedy labor justice. whether a return to work order is issued or not. In that case. In Marcopper Mining Corp. see to it that the case or matter shall be decided or resolved without any further delay. TAKE NOTE: The extent of authority of the compulsory arbitration are those that may be necessary to settle the dispute. the Executive Labor Arbiter. or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or Med-Arbiter. Thus. Tuico) 2) A return to work order does not violate the Involuntary Servitude clause (Sarmiento v. 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. and a copy thereof served upon the parties. be readmitted to work. v. Brillantes (254 SCRA 595). Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period. without prejudice to any liability which may have been incurred as a consequence thereof. in the appreciation of and the conclusions the Secretary drew from the evidence presented. the Secretary of Labor and Employment. i. the High Tribunal stated in no uncertain terms that – “by staging a strike after the assumption of jurisdiction or certification for arbitration. 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. 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 decision of the President. Upon expiration of the corresponding period. and so could be validly replaced.” As regards the third assigned error. However. 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. as the case may be.e. i. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. or the Regional Director. The Secretary of Labor and Employment. 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. One merely has to file a motion for clarification. or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or MedArbiter. 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. take note of the duty to comply. 6. 277 i.  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. Quisumbing. For this purpose. 5) According to the Bagiou Colleges case: If there is doubt. picketing and lockouts. That contention is misplaced. we declared in Meralco. as the case may be. Having thus resolved the threshold issue as hereinabove discussed. 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. 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.” The rationale of this prohibition is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by the competent authority. the aforesaid officials shall. 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. Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. the periods provided in this Code within which decisions or resolutions of labor relations cases or matters should be rendered shall be mandatory. (Sarmiento v. having abandoned their employment.” Disini: RULES REGARDING RETURN TO WORK ORDER 1) The moment there is Presidential (or by Secretary of Labor) assumption of jurisdiction.

 While the Company submitted its position paper together with supporting evidence and rested its case for resolution. a patently incongruous and unjust situation (Santos v.” 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. if not totally averted. judicial review may not be had over an administrative agency’s decision. in the meantime. NEGATING THE PETITIONERS’ VESTED RIGHT TO BACKWAGES Since.  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 implies the absence of arbitrariness.” 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. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has indeed acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction. 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. for this Court to properly exercise the power of judicial review over a decision of an administrative agency. to award backwages when there is no finding of illegal dismissal (Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation. the strikers were not illegally dismissed. the status quo obtaining in the workplace”. which is. is untenable. nay. and that there is no appeal. The assumption for granting financial assistance or separation pay. 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. With such blatant disregard by the strikers of official edicts ordering their “temporary reinstatement”. of the public respondent’s office. No. Thus.  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.  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 . Aglibut. the Secretary of Labor observed that while “it was obligatory on the part of both parties to restore. National Labor Relations Commission. The same view holds with respect to the award of financial assistance or separation pay. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  In fact. the same “was not possible considering the strikers had defied the return-to-work Order of this Office”. “THAT TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN THE COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY HAVE NO ROOM IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 263(g) makes it incumbent for him to bring about soonest.  A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position paper cannot claim to have been denied due process. 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. this translates into the exercise of proper discretion and to the observance of due process. the COMPANY is under no obligation to pay backwages to them. in legal parlance. reasonableness. Lita V. there is no basis to award them backwages corresponding to said time frames.R. The record shows that in the hearing of September 22. The grant of plenary powers to the Secretary of Labor under Art.  However. It is simply inconsistent.  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. In the absence of any showing of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. such as the DOLE. herein petitioners. Atty. however. 154 SCRA 166). as correctly found 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. 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.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. or any plain. that there is an illegally dismissed employee and that illegally dismissed employee would otherwise have been entitled to reinstatement. submitted only its position paper but without attaching thereto any supporting documentary evidence. 1998 attended by the parties. paper and to attach thereto affidavits and documentary evidence within 10 days. absurd. Hearing Officer. 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. 127215 ordering the Secretary of Labor to determine with dispatch the legality of the strike. they will recover something they have not or could not have earned by their willful defiance of the return-to-work order. it must first be shown that the tribunal. Otherwise. is not present in the case at bench.

the parties may opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. to manage their own affairs. petitioner union even asked Labor Arbiter to suspend the proceedings before him and consolidate the same with the case before the Secretary of Labor. 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. and therefore is illegal. The tire industry has long ceased to be a government protected industry and. 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. 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. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND LABOR RIGHTS Philtread Workers Union v. which enjoins the strike. 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. to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. and even contrary to. 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. viz. and from 6 pm to 6 am. knowing fully well that there was also a directive for Labor Arbiter Caday to thereafter submit his report and recommendation to the Secretary. 263 Strikes. 1995 constitute serious misconduct as well as reflective of their moral character.  However. 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 reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. Petitioners posit that the instant labor dispute does not adversely affect the national interest. Inc. activities and programs. The order is likewise contrary to Article 3 of the International Labor Organization Convention No. 2.: “Article 3. is an utter interference of the workers’ right to selforganization. 87. 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. 7. 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 strikers’ open and willful defiance of the assumption order dated September 16. 1. granting financial assistance to them is not and cannot be justified Necessarily. what is stated in the CBA. The assailed order of the Secretary of Labor. the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. 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. Hon. moreover. In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter. Hence. As the appellate court pointed out. vs. 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. o To our mind. the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence other than. Workers’ and Employers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules. to 6 p. this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. Secretary of Labor and ALU where the Court declared:  In the present case. hence.  In fact.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. When Acting Labor Secretary Brillantes ordered Labor Arbiter Caday to continue with the hearing of the illegal strike case. Article XIII of the Constitution.m. to elect their representatives in full freedom. the parties acceded and participated in the proceedings. OPTION – SUBMIT CASE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AFTER CERTIFICATION Art.m. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 130 of 139 . 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.  Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Interphil Laboratories Union v. 8. which specifically prohibits public authorities from interfering in purely union matters. (h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process. and decide the same accordingly. picketing and lockouts.

A.:  “The Company is one of the tire manufacturers in the country employing more or less 700 workers. As observed by the Secretary of Labor. morals and general welfare of society (People vs.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. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workers’ constitutional right to strike. 262 provides:  Jurisdiction over other labor disputes – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. Petitioner joined the petition and the case was submitted for decision. national interests will be affected. Moreover. the labor dispute may lead to the possible closure of the Company and loss of employment to hundreds of its workers. the same had already been resolved in Union of Filipino Employees vs. within constitutional limits. therefore. Vera Reyes. Inc. the Labor Code formerly provided that if the parties in collective bargaining fail to reach an agreement. 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.  Art 250(e) of the Labor Code now provides that if effects of conciliation fail. Art.6715 which took effect on March 21. Nestle Philippines. it employs about 700 people. otherwise known as Herrera law. to promote the order. to wit:  “In the case at bar. when in the exercise of such right.05 VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION 1. 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. But this was changed by R. if its efforts were not successful. viz. no court has ever declared that the said articles are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution. 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. There is no doubt. On the issue of the constitutionality of Article 263 (g). his certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to impede the workers’ right to strike but to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute. that the labor dispute in the Country is imbued with national interest.  Although the union’s petition was for “compulsory arbitration. the Board shall “encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. 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 foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right to strike but merely regulates it. no law has ever been passed by Congress expressly repealing Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code.” the subsequent agreement of petitioner to submit the matter for arbitration in UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 131 of 139 . the BLR should call them to conciliation meetings and. 67 Phil. upon agreement of the parties. DEFINED Manila Central Line Corp. 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. The Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. 1989. petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to render the decision in question. safety.  Indeed. certify the dispute to a labor arbiter for compulsory arbitrarion. 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. 190).A. Held: The petition is devoid of merit. as a result of a labor dispute will certainly prejudice the employment and livelihood of its workers and their dependents. 6715. 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.  The rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute. which has been defined as the power inherent in a government to enact laws. Moreover.  They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily.  On the contrary. This will definitely aggravate the already worsening unemployment situation in the country and discourage foreign and domestic investors from further investing in the country.  At any rate. After the Board failed to resolve the bargaining deadlock between parties. the union filed a petition for compulsory arbitration in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Furthermore. 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 interests of both the employers and employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue preference. This is what the parties did in this case. v. Section 27 of which amended paragraphs (g) and (l) of Article 263 of the Labor Code. Any work disruption thereat.. health. Thus.” With specific reference to cases involving deadlocks in collective bargaining. 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. Philtread supplies 22% of the tire products in the country.  11.

2. It does not matter that the person chosen as arbitrator is a labor arbiter who.— 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 . Petitioner agreed together with the union. except those which are gross in character. the parties may choose a voluntary arbitrator to decide on terms and conditions of employment. 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. gross violations of CBA shall mean flagrant and/ or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.  or include in the agreement the procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary Arbitrators. xxx 4. 5. For this purpose. Art. Sec. Interest Disputes: These ponders on the questions “what should be included in the CBA. upon agreement of the parties. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the CBA. ARBITRATOR SELECTION Art. ARBITRABLE ISSUES Art. parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. 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. ex: CBA or company policies). 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.  shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. 261 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.— The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. 260 x x x. BASIS FOR VOLUNTARY AND RATIONALE ARBITRATION personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining 1987 Constitution. Rights Disputes v. violations of a CBA.  Accordingly. after all is that it is by agreement of the parties.  For purposes of this article.” Strictly speaking. preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board. that a matter is submitted for arbitration. 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. rather than compulsion of law.  In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrators. It was only after the decision was rendered that petitioner raised the question of lack of jurisdiction. as may be necessary. 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. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. The Commission. to refer their dispute for arbitration to him. Voluntary Arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this matters. including conciliation. XIII.— The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. but that is impracticable because it will be a value judgment of the arbitrator and not the parties. the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrators. Art. 262 Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. Moreover. PROCESS ENCOURAGEMENT/PROMOTION Establishing Machinery Dispute Settlement – Collective Bargaining Agreement and Time Frame Art. petitioner must be deemed to be estopped from questioning the authority of Labor Arbiter. 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 essence of voluntary arbitration. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. to act as voluntary arbitrator and render a decision in this case. is charged with the compulsory arbitration of certain labor cases. Interest Disputes Rights disputes: Claim for violation of a specific right (Arising from a contract. 3.

shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 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. contract-implementation. --. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment.. without this. For purposes of this article. violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. v.  Absent such express stipulation. he in effect submitted himself to the procedure set forth in the CBA regarding submission of unresolved grievances to a Voluntary Arbitrator.(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide. 261. rates of pay. standard companion issues on reliefs and remedies are deemed incorporated. moral.e. or interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. They point out that when petitioner sought the assistance of his Union to avail of the grievance machinery."  Ergo. 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. the phrase "all disputes" should be construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of i. 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. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. xxx Art. then there would be no reason to invoke the need to interpret and implement the CBA provisions properly. gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. Termination disputes. 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. — 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. whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor Arbiters is clearly defined and specifically delineated in the Labor Code. The case is primarily a termination dispute. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. 4.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Agreement. within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension. respondents argue that the arbitrator is empowered to award the assailed benefits because notwithstanding the sole issue of the date of regularization. Otherwise. Held: The argument is untenable. except those which are gross in character. The Commission. disputes Voluntary Arbitrators. which in this case is the sole issue of the date of regularization of the workers. 217. the award of benefits by the arbitrator was done in excess of jurisdiction. On the matter of the benefits. Petitioner asserts that the arbitrator must confine its adjudication to those issues submitted by the parties for arbitration. exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations. its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes. JURISDICTION Viviero v. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 133 of 139 . 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. Accordingly. read: Art. In San Miguel Corp. Illegal termination disputes .  Thus. Hence. those cases that workers may file involving wage. the following cases involving all workers. Claims for actual. 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.not falling within any of these categories should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific provision of law. even in the absence of stenographic notes.  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. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. Unfair labor practice cases: 2. 3. Ludo and Luym Corp v. relating to contract-interpretation. the question to be resolved necessarily springs from the primary issue of whether there was a valid termination. 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. the whole arbitration process would be rendered purely academic and the law creating it inutile.  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. The pertinent provisions of the Labor Code.

NLRC. While the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or regularization. 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. the arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement. and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party . Hearing may be adjourned for a cause or upon agreement by the parties. as already indicated. NATURE OF OFFICE AND FUNCTION Nippon Paint Employees Union v. order. 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. boards or commissions. decisions. in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees. 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. the ultimate question of whether respondent employees are entitled to higher benefits. shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. 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. to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. as amended. 261 and 262. NLRC. 262. 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. Art. Unless the parties agreed otherwise. — The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. All parties to the dispute shall be entitled to attend the arbitration proceedings. or award. instrumentalities. including efforts to effect a voluntary settlement between parties. CA (2004) In the case of Luzon Development Bank vs. Upon motion of any interested party.  In one case. as amended. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. 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. in the affirmative case. said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws.B. Liner. that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases enumerated in the Labor Code. Comparatively. 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. upon agreement of the parties.” While a voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s personnel. 442. Articles 217. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 134 of 139 . the amount thereof. once and for all. orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies. 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. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 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. the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides. Generally. receive evidences and take whatever action is necessary to resolve the issue or issues subject of dispute. By the same token. the issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered issue. 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. 262-A Procedures The voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have the power to hold hearings. 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. and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of In construing the above provisions. resolutions. Inc. the Employees’ Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission. in a proper case.” PROCEDURE Art. the provisions of this Act. vs. The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based.  Nevertheless. It bears stressing that the underlying reason why this case arose is to settle. The Arbitrator. we held in San Jose vs. in Reformist Union of R. can possibly include money claims in one form or another.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. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. which provides: (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments.

" Certiorari can not be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.  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. the cases of Ocampo vs.  the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides. Indeed. Employees Compensation Commission. Article 261 of the Labor Code is clear.” and “no plain. Sanchez. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. order. Agricultural Inventions Board. Citibank Employees Union v. the interested party may ask to modify or later judgment to harmonize the same with justice and the facts Held: After mature deliberation. 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. the pertinent provision of which states as follows: SECTION 1. 1979. find that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent in issuing the award (decision). and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. We have arrived at the conclusion that the respondent's position is not well taken. or award. this Court took this decision into consideration in approving the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.Part XI : Alternatives to Use of Economic Force: Conciliation And Arbitration Labor Relations Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. Abarquez (1993) Moreover. as contended by the Solicitor General in his comment dated August 6. National Electrification Administration. certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards. 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. the decisions of a voluntary arbitrator fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Office of the President. Davao Integrated v. Trademarks and Technology Transfer. Moreover. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA cannot be faulted with and is absolutely correct. citing. The situation before Us in the instant case has no parity with those obtaining in the As such. 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. his interpretation of Sections 1 and 3. National Telecommunications Commission. Insurance Commission.” 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. the same could still be modified or set aside. NPEU has not provided this Court any compelling reason why it must disregard the mandate of the Rules of Court. Social Security Commission. Securities and Exchange Commission. 262-A xxx The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based. Bureau of Patents. UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 135 of 139 . facts and circumstances transpire which render its execution impossible or unjust."  We. Board of Investments. Land Registration Authority. Civil Aeronautics Board. 6. Central Board of Assessment Appeals.  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. in which the SCruled that "when after judgment has been rendered and the latter has become final. in support of such contention. therefore. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission. MOLE (1980) The position of respondent Minister is that assuming the final and executory character of the award in question. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. judgments. 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.  This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which lies only where there is “no appeal. Government Service Insurance System. This salutary rule has been disregarded on occasion by this Court in instances where valid and compelling circumstances warrant. in consequence or by reason of the supervening acts of respondent Minister. Upon motion of any interested party. However. 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. Energy Regulatory Board. 6657. Scope.

the decision may still be reconsidered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the basis of a motion for reconsideration duly filed during that period. the arbitrator's award when stipulated by the parties to be conclusive becomes part and parcel of the CBA. 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..  However. Inc. etc. may be applied retroactively to pending actions as have herein a number cases. The policy which lies behind this is an unwillingness to permit one who is not a judicial officer and who acts informally and sporadically. et al. FINALITY AND EXECUTION OF AWARDS Imperial Textile Miles.  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. a fact he was well aware of. 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. 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 philosophy underlying this rule was explained by Judge Freedman in the case of La Vale Plaza. supra 7. 1238-1239) The case of The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. the parties submit their differences to arbitration. much less abrogate.S. during the lifetime of the said collective bargaining agreement. 2d 1234 (19711. overtime pay..G. which introduced amended Article 262-A of the Labor Code became effective on March 11. Calica (1992) When the parties submitted their grievance to arbitration. Thus:  By modifying the original award. so to speak. Such a provision.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.  RA 6715. We hold that regardless of any law anterior or posterior to the Arbitrator's award. which We are fully convinced is most consistent with the principles of collective bargaining. 1989. his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration. when in relation to a controversy as to working conditions. of the collective bargaining inserted by virtue of the award of the arbitrator. modify. Washington Post Co.. Viewed in this sense.  Presumably. Inc. Loc. 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. Therefore. Noonan. he could no longer entertain a motion for reconsideration of the decision for its reversal or modification. The first decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator was rendered on July 12. v. 9. Saornido.  Stated differently. 9. (Washington-Baltimore N. considering that these deal with the rights and interests of labor to which the charter explicitly affords protection.. the collective bargaining agreement in this case has been correspondingly amended in a manner that is unalterable. respondent arbitrator exceeded his authority as such. the new terms. this Court held that the Voluntary Arbitrator lost jurisdiction over the case submitted to him the moment he rendered his decision.. when the law in force was Article 263 of the Labor Code. thus:  It is an equally fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award. they expressly agreed that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator would be final.) The award of the arbitrator in this case is not to be equated with a judicial decision. 442 F. executory and unappealable. it cannot b e applied to a case in which the decision had become final before the new provision took effect. The continuity of judicial office and the tradition which surround judicial conduct is lacking in the isolated activity of an arbitrator. R. 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. as in the case at bar. 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. In fact. Article 11. etc. allowances. To do otherwise would violate the prescription of the Constitution against impairment of the obligation of contracts. (Sec. interest or policy. 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. to re-examine a final decision which he has already rendered. which necessarily include the amount of wages. holiday pay. reform. pp. In effect. even without this stipulation. being procedural. because of the potential evil of outside communication and unilateral influence which might affect a new conclusion. 1988. Bureau of Labor Relations. immovable and immutable like the rock of Gibraltar. See: Ludo and Luym v. 35 v. which provided that: Voluntary  UP LAW BAROPS 2007 ONE UP 136 of 139 . although even here the vast increase in the arbitration of labor disputes has created the office of the specialized provisional arbitrator. Article II.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful