UP08-Labor-Law-02 | Collective Bargaining | United States Labor Law

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Bar Operations 2008

LABOR LAW II

Bar Operations Head Academics Head Subject Head

│ Arianne Reyes │ Henry Aguda
Ryan Balisacan

│ Dielle Kapunan

Rowena Salonga

LABOR LAW II

LABOR RELATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 SECTION 8 SECTION 9 SECTION 10 SECTION 11 Topic Right to Self-Organization Labor Organization Union Security Appropriate Bargaining Unit Union Representation Collective Bargaining Unfair Labor Practice Concerted Activities Labor Injunction Other Modes of Labor Dispute Settlement Amendments to the Labor Code Page no. 2 5 9 12 15 21 25 32 39 44 54

LABOR LAW II

LABOR RELATIONS

PART I RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION
I. Basis of Right
The right to self-organization is granted to the employee by both the Constitution (ART. III, Sec 8; ART. XIII, Sec. 3) and by the Labor Code (ART. 243). Thus, it is both constitutionally guaranteed as well as statutorily guaranteed. Being a primordial Constitutional Right, it prevails most of the time over the right to property of the employer.

ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES ART. 244 Government Corporation Employees: shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. Other Employees in the Civil Service: shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law. ART. 245 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. EO 111, Manila Electric Co. v. Sec. of Labor (1991) Security Guards: may now join a rank and file organization. Art. 212 (m): “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. Why can’t supervisors join a union of rank-and-file? » To avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank and file, or where the supervisors' labor organization would represent conflicting interests (Dunlop v. Sec. of Labor (1998)). ALIENS ART. 269 General Rule: they are strictly PROHIBITED from engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities Exception: aliens working in the country a. Have valid permits issued by DOLE b. Reciprocity: That said aliens are nationals of a country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers

II.

Extent and Scope of Right
ART. 246 The right to self-organization shall include the right:  To form, join or assist labor organizations » For the purpose 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, » Subject to the provisions of Art 264 of this

NOTE: The certification election is an example of the exercise of the right to self-organization.

THE RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION SHALL ALSO INCLUDE:

Right not to exercise it: 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 to join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to maintain membership therein. 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 (Reyes v. Trajano (1992)) Right to withdraw from the organization: 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 the union, the resignation of the member-employees is an expression of their preference for union membership over that of membership in the cooperative (Central Negros Electric Cooperative v. Sec. of Labor (1991)) Right to raise issues in behalf of the organization: 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 actuations as such should therefore be considered as legitimate exercise of the employees' right to selforganization and as an activity for their mutual aid and protection, aside from being privileged communication protected by the constitutional guarantee on free speech (Union of Supervisors v. Sec. of Labor (1991))

IV. Workers with No Right to Self-Organization
MANAGERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ART. 245  NOT eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. 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. Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. Laguesma (2000) “Confidential employees” are those who a. Assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard b. To persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies [specifically in the field of labor relations]. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee. NOTE: The manager’s right to self-organize is NOT removed, but only limited. It cannot be a labor organization which has a technical

III. Workers with Right to Self-Organization
WORKER QUALIFICATIONS Employees have the right to form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. Whether employed for a definite period or not, they shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union (UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio (1999), see also ART. 277(c)) Even 1) 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 (FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes medical Foundation, Inc. v. Trajano (1987)); and 2) members of religious sects such as the INC, can now form their own union (Victoriano v. Elizalde Workers Union (1974)).

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 3 of 62

LABOR LAW II
meaning of its own, being composed of employees (which excludes managers, as managers are considered employers under labor relations) and for the purpose of collective bargaining. Art. 245 of the Labor Code does not directly prohibit confidential employees from engaging in union activities. However, under the doctrine of necessary implication, the disqualification of managerial employees equally applies to confidential employees RATIONALE: Employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests. COOPERATIVE MEMBERS Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao vs Ferrer-Calleja (1988) An employee of such a cooperative who is a member AND COOWNER cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. However, insofar as it involves cooperatives with employees who are NOT members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining negotiations, and others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country. PD 175: a COOPERATIVE is an organization composed of small producers and of consumers who voluntarily join together to form business enterprises which they themselves, own, control and patronize. Its owners or members are the ones who run and operate the business while the others are its employees. NON-EMPLOYEES Rep. Planters Bank General Services Employees Union v. Laguesma (1996) If union members are not employees, no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining and to be certified as bargaining agent can be recognized.

LABOR RELATIONS
A local union of supervisory employees may be allowed to affiliate with a national federation of labor organizations of rank and file employees. What the law prohibits is that supervisory employees join a rank and file union. The national federation would be representing the respective interests of the 2 groups separately. Adamson v. CIR (1984) 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.

2.

Local Union Disaffiliation

NATURE OF RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE Volkschel Labor Union v BLR (1985) Right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother union is well-settled. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Malayang Samahan v. Ramos (2000) A local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation's constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union. RULE – LEGALITY OF DISAFFILIATION Villar vs Inciong (1983) Although, as a matter of principle, an affiliate has the right to disaffiliate, this right must respect the terms of the affiliation agreement. PERIOD OF DISAFFILIATION Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC (1987) GENERALLY, 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. EXCEPTION: Shift of allegiance of majority. In such a case, however, the CBA continues to bind members of the new or disaffiliated and independent union up to the CBA’s expiration date

V.

Party Protected
ALL EMPLOYEES OF BARGAINING UNIT 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. It represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit. Furthermore, what is entitled to protection is labor, not the labor organization. The latter are merely instrumentalities through which their welfare may be promoted and fostered.

POLICY AND DEFINITION
VI. Non-Abridgement of Right
NON-ABRIDGEMENT OF RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION ART. 246 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 self-organization.  Violation of the right to self-organization shall be considered an unfair labor practice (ART. 248, 249)

DEFINITIONS 1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

EMPLOYER Art. 212 (e)   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.

1.

Supervisor – Rank and File Union Affiliation

RULE ON AFFILIATION, RATIONALE Atlas Lithographic v Laguesma (1992)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 4 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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. - IMPLICATION: the employer may NOT necessarily be the owner of the business. - 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).

LABOR RELATIONS
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.

3.

LABOR DISPUTES

LABOR DISPUTES Art. 212 (l)
 INCLUDE 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.

EMPLOYEE Art. 212 (f)
   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.”

 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 employeeemployer relationship? – Yes, provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a change or arrangement thereof (San Miguel Corp. Employees UnionPTGWO v. Bersamira (199

2.

LABOR ORGANIZATION - LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION

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

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 5 of 62

LABOR LAW II

LABOR RELATIONS

PART II LABOR ORGANIZATION
I. Labor Organization – Unions
DEFINITIONS LABOR ORGANIZATION ART. 212 (g) 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 LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION ART. 212 (h) Any labor organization duly registered with the Dept. of Labor and Employment and includes any branch or local thereof.

FEDERATION/NATIONAL UNION ART. 237 a. Proof of affiliation of at least 10 locals or chapters and; b. The names and addresses of the companies where the locals or chapters operate and the list of all the members of each company involved.

NOTE: ART. 237 is subject to ART. 238 PROCEDURE ART. 235 All requisite documents and papers to be filed shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the organization/union as the case may be and attested to by its president. Moreover, Book V, Rule II, Sec. 4 requires: i. that the application should be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and be accompanied by a sworn statement of the applicant union that there is no certified bargaining agent or, where there is an existing collective agreement duly submitted to the DOLE, that the application is filed during the freedom period

NOTE: A labor organization composed of both rank and file and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot posses the rights of a legitimate labor organization (Dunlop v. Sec. of Labor (1998)).

ii.

DOLE REGISTRATION AS BASIS OF LEGITIMACY
The union’s registration with the BLR, and UPON issuance of the CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION based on the requirements under ART 234, makes it a legitimate labor organization, with the rights and privileges granted by the Labor Code including the release or custody of union dues (Cebu Seamen’s Assoc., Inc v. Ferrer-Calleja (1992), Progressive Dev’t v. Sec. of Labor (1992)).

In case of a local/chapter: need not be registered independently
to acquire personality. Any legitimate labor organization may directly create a local/chapter by issuing a charter certificate indicating establishment of the local/charter. The local/chapter shall enjoy rights and privileges of a legitimate labor org only upon submission of: (1) CHARTER CERTIFICATE within 30 days from issuance of national union (2) NAMES of officers, their addresses, and principal address of local/chapter; and (3) CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS (but if same with federation/national union – this shall be indicated accordingly) -- These supporting documents must be CERTIFIED UNDER OATH by the secretary/treasurer, and ATTESTED to by its president (ART.234A).

II.

Union Function and Rationale
1. To promote interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes (United Seaman’s Union v Davao Ship-owners Assoc (1967)). 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. Workers unorganized are weak, workers organized are strong (Guijarno v. CIR (1973))

2.

III. Labor Union and Government Regulation 1. Union Registration and Procedure

REQUIREMENTS – TO ACQUIRE LEGAL PERSONALITY Any Labor Organization/Association ART. 234 1. P50 registration fee 2. The names of its officers their addresses, the principal address of the labor org, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings 3. The names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all the employees of the bargaining unit it seeks to operate 4. If the applicant union has been in existence for 1 or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and 5. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the members participating in it.

Effect of Registration on Freedom of Association: the
requirement of registration does NOT curtail the freedoms of assembly and association. Said freedoms may still be exercised with or without registration. 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 (PAFLU v. Sec. of Labor (1969))

2.

Action or Denial of Application and Remedy

ACTION OF APPLICATION ART. 235
The bureau shall act on all applications for registration within 30 days from filing.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the org as the case may be and attested to by its president the applicant union to the Bureau within 10 days from receipt of notice thereof.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 6 of 62

LABOR LAW II
DENIAL OF APPLICATION – MAY BE APPEALED ART. 236 The decision of the Labor Relations Division in the regional office denying registration may be appealed by NOTE: As long as an applicant union complies with all of the legal requirements for registration, it becomes the BLR’s ministerial duty to so register the union (Vassar Industries EEs Union v. Estrella (1951)

LABOR RELATIONS
amendments thereto; minutes of the ratification; and list of members who participated in the ratification; 2. MISREPRESENTATION, false statement or fraud in with election of officers; minutes of election, and list of voters; VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION by members

EFFECT OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
 In the case of Progressive Development v. Laguesma (1997), the Court held that the certification election proceedings should be SUSPENDED until the issue of the legality of the Union’s registration shall have been resolved.  BUT under ART 238-A, a petition for cancellation of union registration SHALL NOT SUSPEND the proceedings on certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification election (see collateral attack, pg 3).

3.

Collateral Attack

 After a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality CANNOT be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V, Book IV of the "Rules to Implement the Labor Code" (Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, Inc. vs. Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (2003)).

IV. International Activities of Union – Prohibition and Regulation
 Aliens, natural/juridical, as well as foreign orgs, are strictly prohibited from engaging directly/indirectly in all forms of trade union activities, subject to certain exceptions (ART. 269).  No foreign individual, org or entity may give any donations, grants or other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly, to any labor org, group of workers or any auxiliary thereof, as well as those given directly or indirectly to any employer(s) org to support any activity or activities affecting trade unions – WITHOUT prior permission of the Secretary of Labor (ART. 270). This prohibition applies to farm tenants and rural workers (ART. 271).  The Sec. of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to regulate/control the giving and receiving of such donations, including mandatory reporting of amounts donated, the projects/activities to be supported and their duration (ART. 270).

RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATION ART. 242
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. to act as REPRESENTATIVE of MEMBERS for purpose of collective bargaining to be certified as EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE of EMPLOYEES in appropriate bargaining unit for purpose of collective bargaining to BE FURNISHED by employer, upon written request, with its annual audited FINANCIAL STATEMENTS to OWN PROPERTY, real/personal, for use and benefit of the labor organization and its members to SUE and be sued in its registered name to UNDERTAKE ALL activities designed to benefit the organization and members – not contrary to law income, properties, grants, endowments, gifts, donations, and contributions – used for their lawful purposes – shall be FREE from TAXES, DUTIES and ASSESSMENTS, except when this provision is expressly repealed by a special law

V.

Union-Member Relations

1. Nature of Relationship 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. The employer may rely on the authority of the union to bring the union members especially in collective bargaining (Heirs of Cruz v. CIR (1969)). 2. Issues o 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. They embody a covenant between a union and its members and constitute the fundamental law governing members’ rights and obligations (UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio (1999)). o GENERAL RULE: Labor union remains a PRIVATE and VOLUNTARY organization. Hence, membership is a matter of privilege. o EXCEPTION: When union has access to employment, example: CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT. 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 (see Salunga v. CIR (1967)).

4.

Effect of Non-registration

 If not registered – union does not become LEGITIMATE labor organization; hence, CANNOT enjoy rights and privileges granted under ART. 242 (Sugbuanon Rural Bank,Inc. v. Laguesma (2000), Protection Technology v. Sec. Of Labor (1995)).

5.

Cancellation of Union Certificate of Registration

 The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization shall be cancelled by the BLR, after due hearing, ONLY ON GROUNDS specified in ART. 239 (ART. 238, as amended).  The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses — as a rule — its rights under the Labor Code. A decision rendered without any hearing is null and void (Alliance of Democratic Labor Organization v. Laguesma (1996)).  BUT take note of last par of ART. 241(j): Failure of any labor organization to comply with the periodic financial reports required by law and such rules and regulations promulgated thereunder 6 months after the effectivity of this Act shall automatically result in the cancellation of union registration of such labor organization.

ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS ART. 249 (a)  A labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. ART. 277 (c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall be considered as an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union -- beginning on his first day of service.

GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION (MCBL, ME, VD) ART. 239 (as amended)
1. MISREPRESENTATION, false statement or fraud in connection with adoption/ratification of the constitution and by laws or

RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE VILLAR V. INCIONG (1983)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 7 of 62

LABOR LAW II
When a labor union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization. It becomes subject to the laws of the superior body under whose authority the local union functions. When members of a labor union sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union, when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong – they forfeit their rights to remain as members.

LABOR RELATIONS
as prayed for, and not call for a referendum to decide the issue (Kapisanan v. Trajano (1985)).

ELECTION INVALID
o Free and honest elections are indispensable to the enjoyment by employees and workers of their constitutionally protected right to self-organization. If attended by grave irregularities – election should therefore be declared INVALID (Rodriguez vs Director (1988)).

DUE PROCESS ART. 279
A regular employee CANNOT be removed from his services by employer WITHOUT a just cause or when NOT authorized, otherwise, employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights/privileges + full backwages, allowances and other benefits/monetary equivalent from time his compensation was withheld up to his actual reinstatement.

MAJOR POLICY MATTERS ART. 241 (d)
o MEMBERS shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation, any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the organization o but if such secret ballot becomes impractical o the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the organization may make the decision in behalf of the general membership UNION FUNDS RIGHTS/CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORG ART 241 (b) Members are entitled to full/detailed financial transaction reports (g) Collection of any fees, dues or other contributions in behalf of the labor org, or any disbursement of its money/funds – allowed if duly authorized by CBL (h) Payment of fees, 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 (i) Funds of the org shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those expressly provided by the CBL or authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the purpose (j) Every income or revenue of the org shall be evidenced by a record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt (l) The treasurer shall render account (duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor) 1. 2. 3. At least once a year within 30 days after the close of its fiscal year.; At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority of the members of the organization; and Upon vacating his office.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS QUALIFICATIONS
 Membership in good standing (ART. 241 (c))  Must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude (ART. 241 (f)) MANNER OF ELECTION ART. 241 (C)  members shall directly elect their officers  by secret ballot  at intervals of 5 years TENURE ART 241 (C)  5 years COMPENSATION ART. 241 (k)  General Rule: NONE  Except: If specifically provided by their CBL, or allowed by written resolution duly authorized by majority of all members in a general membership meting duly called for the purpose

VOTER’S LIST
o Only MEMBERS of union can participate in the election of union officers, and the question of eligibility is determined through the use of the applicable payroll period and employee’s status during the applicable payroll period (Tancinco vs Calleja (1988)) o UNION ELECTION is different from CERTIFICATION ELECTION (see UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio (1999)). o Union election – election of officers of union; members only can participate. o Certification election – election of sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit; all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can participate.

(m) 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 (n) 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 (o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, atty.’s fees, 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 Employeee. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction. NOTE: Sec of Labor or his duly authorized representative may inquire into financial activities of legitimate labor orgs – UPON filing of complaint under oath and supported by written consent of at least 20% of total membership, Provided, such inquiry shall not be conducted during (60)-day freedom period nor within the thirty (30)

DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATE
o If candidate is proven to be disqualified, it does not mean that the candidate with 2nd highest number of votes becomes the elected officer (Manalad v. Trajano (1989)).

EXPULSION REMEDY
o If herein union officers were guilty of the alleged acts imputed, BLR pursuant to Article 242 should have meted out the appropriate penalty on them, i.e., to expel them from the Union,

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 8 of 62

LABOR LAW II
days immediately preceding the date of election of union officials (ART 274). Exception      

LABOR RELATIONS

Kapisanan v Hernandez (20 SCRA 109)

SOURCE OF PAYMENT – ATTORNEY’S FEES, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
o Attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining negotiations or conclusion of the collective agreement shall NOT be imposed on individual member of contracting union, but may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void (ART. 222 (b)). o Art. 241 (n) 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. 3) Individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employees concerned. RULE: Attorney’s fees, special assessments and other extraordinary fees may be charged against individual members. EXCEPT: If payment is effected through forced contributions from workers – workers did not expressly consent or give written authorization (see ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members V. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp (1999), Gabriel v. Sec. of Labor (2000)).

Futility of intra-union remedies Improper expulsion procedure Undue delay in appeal as to constitute substantial injustice When the action is for damages Lack of jurisdiction of investigating body When the action of the administrative agency is patently illegal, arbitrary and oppressive  When the issue involved is purely a question of law  Where the administrative agency has already prejudged the case  Where the administrative agency was practically given the opportunity to act on the case but did not.

VI. Union Affiliation: Local-Parent Relations 3. Affiliation

PURPOSE ART 211 (C)
 To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement PHIL SKYLANDERS V. NLRC (2002)  The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective action, the common bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement and protection of their interests. Admittedly, there are times when without succor and support local unions may find it hard, unaided by other support groups, to secure justice for themselves.

MANDATORY ACTIVITY
Judicial process of settling disputes laid down by the law. Amicable settlements cannot be considered as a mandatory activity. ART 241 (o) envisions a situation where there is a judicial or administrative proceeding for recovery of wages (Vengco v Trajano (1989)) Note: Article 222 (b) does not except a CBA, later placed under compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of its prohibition. Hence, individual written authorizations for check-offs are not dispensed with, even if the CBA provides so (Galvadores v Trajano (1986)).

NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP
Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp v. NLRC (1999)  The mother union, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local remained the basic unit of the association, free to serve the common interest of all its members, subject only to restraints imposed by the constitution and by the by-laws of the association. The same is true even if the local is not a legitimate labor organization. EFFECT OF AFFILIATION Adamson v. CIR (1984)  Locals remain the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all. Inclusion of FFW in the registration is merely to stress that they are its affiliates at the time of registrations. It does not mean that said local unions cannot stand on their own. Affiliation does not mean they lost their own legal personality.

ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES – PROCEDURE AND SANCTIONS JURISDICTION
ART. 241, 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. ART. 226 o The BLR and the Labor Relations Division in the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act o at their own initiative or o upon request of either or both parties o on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labormanagement relations in all workplaces o Except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.

GENERALLY - EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL REMEDIES Villar v. Inciong (1983)
 When members of a labor union sow the seeds of dissension and strife within the union, when they seek the disintegration and destruction of the very union to which they belong. They forfeit their rights to remain as members. Union has right to expel erring members in accordance to their CBL. Redress must be first sought within union itself.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 9 of 62

LABOR LAW II
PART III UNION SECURITY
Hiring Union Shop Employees have access to labor market. Can be hired even if not union member. Continued Employment After some time, employee must become a member Ground for Termination If the employee does not join the union after a reasonable time, it will be grounds for termination, after due process is observed 1.

LABOR RELATIONS
that the closed-shop contract is the most prized achievement of unionism. 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. (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.

Closed Shop

Employee must become a member at the time of hiring

Must be a member all through-out

If not a member at anytime, grounds for termination, after due process is observed If disaffiliates from union, grounds for termination, after due process is observed

In other words, 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, 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. GENERALLY: a state may NOT compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual, because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege. EXCEPTION: The rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. Consequently, it is well settled that such unions are NOT entitled to arbitrarily excluded qualified applicants for membership, and a closed-shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of, an employee whom he union thus refuses to admit to membership, without any reasonable ground thereof. To further increase the effectiveness of labor organizations, a closed-shop has been allowed. (Guijarno v. CIR, 1973) Del Monte Phils. v. Saldivar (2006) Admittedly, the enforcement of a closed-shop or union security provision in the CBA as a ground for termination finds no extension within any of the provisions under Title I, Book Six of the Labor Code. Yet jurisprudence has consistently recognized, thus: "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. 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-a-vis the employer."

Maintenance shop

Already a member at the time of hiring

Must maintain membership, otherwise it shall be a ground for termination

4.01 STATUTORY BASIS
Art. 248(e) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF EMPLOYERS 1. 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. 2. 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, EXCEPT those employees who are already members of ANOTHER UNION at the time of signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Art. 243 COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. 3. All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or 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, selfemployed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection.

4.03 VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT AND EFFECT ON FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Tanduay Distillery Labor Union V. NLRC (1987) 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, should be subordinated to the constitutional provision protecting the sanctity of contracts. We can not conceive how freedom to contract, 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. And even if the legislature had intended to do so and made such freedom of the laborer paramount to the sanctity of obligation of contracts, such attempt to override the constitutional provision would necessarily and ipso facto be null and void

4.02 RATIONALE-EMPLOYEE ACTION
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. (Juat v. CIR, 1965)

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. In fact it is said

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 10 of 62

LABOR LAW II
4.04 CONTRACT DRAFTING PROVISION–UNION SECURITY AND INTERPRETATION OF

LABOR RELATIONS
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. IMPLICATION: Even if there exists a union security clause, due process is still necessary. Right to Due Process a. The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. The grievance machinery with members designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed employees. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body. Since there has already been an actual termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. (Sanyo Phil. Workers Union v. Canizares, 1992) Although union security clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental requirement of due process. The reason behind the enforcement of union security clauses which is the sanctity and inviolability of contracts cannot override one's right to due process. (Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos, 2000)

In order for an employer to be bound under a union security clause in the CBA, to dismiss an employer for lack of or loss of union membership, the stipulation must be so clear and unequivocal as to leave absolutely no room for doubt. There must be a provision that union members must be in good standing to keep their job. (Rizal Labor Union v. Rizal Cement Co., 1955) TAKE NOTE: Close shop and union shop provisions are in principle valid and allowed by law. 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. The terms of specific union clauses should be construed strictly and doubts should be resolved against their existence.

4.05 COVERAGE – WORKER INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
Art. 248 (e) 4. 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. 5. 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, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. 6. 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, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: 7. Provided, that the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent; 4.06 NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT 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. (Guijano v. CIR, 1973) A closed-shop agreement applies only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. (Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. CIR)

b.

4.07 FINANCIAL SECURITY
CHECK-OFF Art. 113 b No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees except: for union dues, 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. CHECK-OFF: 1) 2) Ordinary Union dues Extraordinary Fees, but can only be made when authorized by individual written authorization, duly signed by each employee concerned.

Art. 241 m,n,o m. 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; n. No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor org: 8. unless authorized by a written resolution 9. of a majority of all the members of a general membership meeting 10. duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the org shall record: 11. the minutes of the meeting 12. including the list of all members present, 13. the votes cast, 14. the purpose of the special assessment or fees and 15. the recipient of such assessments or fees. The record shall be attested to by the president. (No need to be under oath) o. Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special assessments, atty.’s fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee 16. without an individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. 17. The authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the deduction 1. A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the Union, recognized as the proper

4.07 IMPLEMENTATION–OBLIGATION & LIABILITIES
Carino v. NLRC (1990) We believe that the Company should have given petitioner Cariño an opportunity to explain his side of the controversy with the Union. 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. Bad faith on the part of respondent company may be gleaned from the fact that the petitioner workers were dismissed hastily and summarily. At best, it was guilty of a tortious act, for which it must assume solidary liability, 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. We conclude that the Company had failed to accord to petitioner Cariño the latter's right to procedural due process. The right of an employee to be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his side in a controversy with either the Company or his own Union, is not wiped away by a Union Security Clause or a Union Shop Clause in a CBA.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 11 of 62

LABOR LAW II
bargaining representative, OR on PRIOR authorization from its employees, deduct union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages and remit them directly to the union. Its desirability in a labor organization is quite evident. (ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union V. ABS-CBN) It is assured thereby of CONTINOUS FUNDING. As this Court has acknowledge, the system of check-off is primarily for the benefit of the Union and only indirectly, for the individual employees. (ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union V. ABSCBN)

LABOR RELATIONS
Exceptions: (National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union v. San Miguel Corporation, 1963): 1) Any employee who is a member of a religious group which prohibits its members from joining labor unions on religious grounds, at the time such agreement takes effect 2) Employees who, at the time such agreement takes effect, are already members of a union other than the majority 3) Employees excluded from the closed-shop by express terms of the agreement Note: Employees who cannot join a union in the first place (i.e. Confidential and Managerial) are obviously exempted as well. How Construed: STRICTLY against the employer Financial Security: Gen. Rule: Employee’s wage CANNOT be used for Union purposes Exception: 1) Union Dues 2) Check-Off

2.

Legal basis of check-off: statutes or in contracts.
Statutory limitation on check-offs: Article 241 g “No officer, agent, or member of a labor organization shall collect any fees, dues, 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. etc. See also 241 m,n,o. 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, attorney’s fees and representation expenses be valid and upheld: 1. Authorization by a written of the majority of all the members at the general meeting for that purpose. 2. Secretary’s record of the meeting. 3. Individual written authorization for check-off. National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union v. San Miguel Corporation (1963) NOTE: 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. 248 e. AGENCY FEE now has a statutory basis Art. 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, if such non-union member accepts the benefit under the CBA…” Take note: In the case of agency fee, individual authorization not applied, or not required. This is for practical reasons, because the law recognizes the extreme difficulty of imposing agency fee on non-union members, more especially to members of rival unions.

DO No.40-03 Series of 2003 RULE XIII ADMINISTRATION OF TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACTIONS ARISING THEREFROM
Section 1. Right of union to collect dues and agency fees. - The incumbent bargaining agent shall continue to be entitled to checkoff and collect dues and agency fees despite the pendency of a representation case, other inter/intra-union disputes or related labor relations disputes.

SUMMARY OF NOTES
Definition: Union Security Clause – a term applied to any form of agreement which imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership, at the expense of their employment if they fail to do so Note: Observance of Due Process still holds Closed Shop Agreement: Gen. Rule: All employees in the bargaining unit are covered

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 12 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part IV APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT
5.01 DEFINITION AND ROLE IN LAW
Bargaining Unit: a group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit, 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 [DO No. 40-03 series of 2003 Rule I (d)] Appropriate Bargaining Unit: a group of employees of a given employer comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interests of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties [Belyca Corp. vs Calleja (1988)] 3. Prior CB history 

LABOR RELATIONS

Rationale: if it worked well before, it will work well again now Note: Prior collective bargaining history is not conclusive or determinative of what constitutes the appropriate bargaining unit. [San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma (1994)]

4. Employment status i.e. temporary, seasonal, & probationary Employees

TEST of Grouping: COMMUNITY or MUTUALITY of INTERESTS
 Rationale: Greater chance of success for the collective bargaining process - 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. This is related to the policy of the law in ensuring the right to collective bargain. Example of application: Casual employees were barred from joining union of the permanent and regular employees.

Elements of an appropriate bargaining unit:
1. COMPOSITION - All or less than all of the entire body of employees 2. EQUITY - Of employees: A.k.a = “Collective interest of employees” consistent with the equity of the employer. 3. PURPOSE - to serve the reciprocal rights & duties of the parties under the CB provisions of the law

DISINI:The law is looking only for what is PROPER OR APPROPRIATE. The law is NOT looking for the best!

Can you have a permanent bargaining unit?
No. An appropriate bargaining unit depends on the factors that are influenced by the market place. The bargaining unit is designed to maintain the mutuality of interest among the employees in such unit.  Reason to dissolve, change or expand a certain bargaining unit: when THE INTEREST BETWEEN GROUPS HAS CHANGED OVER TIME.

What is the function of an appropriate bargaining unit?
1. To act as a SOVEREIGN in relation to the CE and CBA 2. It is an ELECTORAL DISTRICT. It marks the boundaries of those who may participate in a certification election. 3. It is an Economic Unit. 4. To select or designate a labor organization to represent them in collective bargaining [Art. 255] 18. General Rule: the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. 19. Exceptions: 1. an individual EE or group of Employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their ER 2. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding and subject to rules and regulations as the SOLE may promulgate, workers shall have the right 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, BENEFITS and WELFARE.  Provision for LABOR MANAGEMENT COUNCILS by workers and ERs – representatives of workers must be elected by at least a majority of all employees in said establishment

GEOGRAPHY – LOCATION
The primary element in determining whether a given group of employees constitute a proper bargaining unit is still whether it will, without inequity to the employer, best serve all employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights. Geography and location only play a significant role if:  the separation between the camps and the different kinds of work in each all militate in favor of the system of separate bargaining units  when the problems and interests of the workers are peculiar in each camp or department  the system of having one collective bargaining unit in each camp has operated satisfactorily in the past [Benguet Consolidated Inc. and Balatok Mining Co. v. Bobok Lumberjack Assn. (1958)]

CORPORATE ENTITIES
Doctrine: 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.  In Umali vs CA, legal corporate entity is disregarded only if it is sought to hold the officers and stockholders directly liable for a corporate debt or obligation. [Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union v. Calica (1992)]

5.02 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT 1. FACTORS IN GENERAL
Rothenberg [UP v. Ferrer-Calleja (1992) citing Democratic Labor Assoc v. Cebu Stevedoring Co.] W-A-P-E 1. Will of the Employees 2. Affinity & unity of Employees interest, such as substantial similarity of works and duties or similarity of compensation & working conditions

Principles in determining whether to establish separate bargaining units:
1. The existence of a bonafide business relationship between the 2 companies is not proof of being a single corporate entity, especially when the services provided by the other company are merely auxiliary. 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

2.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 13 of 62

LABOR LAW II
DISTINCTLY ITS OWN, independent and separate from other corporations. [Diatagon Labor Federation v. Ople (1980)] 3. 4. Separate legitimate purposes militate against treating one corporation as an adjunct or alter ego of the other. The fact that the businesses are related, that some of the employees are the same persons working in the other company and the physical plants, offices and facilities are in the same compound are NOT sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil. [Indophil Textile Mills Workers Union v. Calica (1992)] The transformation of companies is a management prerogative and business judgment which the courts cannot look into unless it is contrary to law, public policy or morals. Determine who exercises supervision and control. a. whether different management terms b. enforcement of administrative and operational rules c. maintenance of financial statements and auditing d. cross-linking of command, control and communication systems [Phil. Scouts Veterans v. Torres (1993)] If, considering the spin-offs, the companies would consequently have their respective and distinctive concerns in terms of nature of work, wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment. The nature of their products and scales of business may require different skills, volumes of work, and working conditions which must necessarily be commensurate by different compensation packages. [San Miguel ..Union v. Confesor (1996)]

LABOR RELATIONS
If you have one BIG bargaining unit, most probably you are grouping together DIFFERENT SKILLED workers. Principles: 3. 4. The will of the employees is the determinative factor. The plebiscite is to be conducted NOT by the DOLE but by the Court itself, in keeping with the court’s right to investigate fully in matters concerning certification elections. The order of the court for the conduct of elections is an interlocutory order – certiorari is not proper.

5.

5.

[Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Road Co. v. Yard Crew Union (1960)] 3. SIZE OF UNIT AND EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Filoil Refinery Corp. v Filoil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Union (1972) 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, 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. 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 self organization and to collective bargaining, which could hardly be accomplished if the respondent association’s membership were to be broken up into five separate ineffective tiny units. Creating fragmentary units would not serve the interest of industrial peace. The breaking up of bargaining units into tiny units will greatly impair their organizational 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, such identity of interest has allowed their inclusion in the bargaining unit of supervisorsmanagers for purposes of collective bargaining. Industrial court enjoys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representations by employees. Action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes is discretionary. Its judgment is entitled to finality, unless its action is arbitrary or capricious.

6.

7.

8.

2. UNIT SEVERANCE AND THE GLOBE DOCTRINE
Concept: 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 [Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Road Co. v. Yard Crew Union (1960)] Rationale: highly skilled workers have to separate to increase their market value 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. The GLOBE DOCTRINE usually applies to employees with rare skills or highly technical ones.  Example: Case of Pilots and Stewardess.

SUPERVISOR UNIT
Supervisors can be an appropriate bargaining unit. Slazenger v. NLRC (1998)] [Dunlop

4. EFFECT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT
Rule: Prior agreement as to the inclusion or exclusion of workers in a bargaining unit or prohibition from forming their own union agreed upon by the corporation with the previous bargaining representatives can never bind subsequent federations. [General Rubber & Footwear Corp. v BLR, (1987)] Rationale: It is a curtailment of the right to self-organization. During the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing collective bargaining agreement but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. [DLSU v. DLSUEA (2000)]

If ,originally, pilots and stewardesses belong to ONE bargaining unit (unit A) for the purpose of collective bargaining, 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). Illustration: Unit A (original bargaining unit): 100 Pilots + 200 Stewardesses = 300 employees Unit B (proposed new unit): Pilots = 100 employees. Those in unit B (100 pilots) will vote in a plebiscite. 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. (2) To vote for Unit B: This would mean that they would want to form their OWN bargaining unit, composed of pilots only. (3) Neither: They do not want the choices

5.03 DETERMINING AGENCY
General Rule: 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 [Art. 232 – sec. 15 of RA 6715] Exceptions: Art. 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code (60 day freedom period)

AGENCY AND FINALITY ORDER

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 14 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Filoil Refinery Corp. 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, and that its action in deciding upon an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purpose is discretionary. Its judgment in this respect is entitled to almost complete finality, unless its action is arbitrary or capricious and that absent any grave abuse of discretion as to justify the Court’s intervention.

LABOR RELATIONS

5.04 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING INDIVIDUAL UNION MEMBER

REPRESENTATIVE

AND

General Rule: the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. Exceptions: 1. an individual EE or group of Employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their ER 2. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding and subject to rules and regulations as the SOLE may promulgate, workers shall have the right 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, BENEFITS and WELFARE.  Provision for LABOR MANAGEMENT COUNCILS by workers and ERs – representatives of workers must be elected by at least a majority of all employees in said establishment

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 15 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part V UNION REPRESENTATION ESTABLISHING UNION MAJORITY STATUS
CONCEPTS Certification Election OR Consent Election: 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. [Department Order No. 40-03 Series of 2003 Rule I (h)] Certification election Aimed at determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining 1st Level of Choice: Yes Union or No Union 2nd Level of Choice: If “Yes Union” wins, WHICH union. [UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio (1999)] Ordered by the DOLE Consent Election Merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit

LABOR RELATIONS
bargaining agent. [Young Men Labor Union Stevedores v CIR (1965)]  IMPLICATION: “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.” (Port Workers Union v. DOLE)

2. It is most DEMOCRATIC and most efficacious/effective way (Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex case) 3. It is a STATUTORY POLICY (Belyca Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja)  IMPLICATION: Thus it should not be circumvented [George & Peter Lines, Inc. v. Associated Labor Union (1985)]. There should be no obstacle in conducting the Certification election.

Purpose

4. There can be no direct certification  Rationale for prohibition: The main purpose of the procedure in Art. 257 - 260 is to aid in ascertaining the majority representation. 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. The constitutional mandate that the State shall assure the rights of the workers to selforganization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work, should be achieved under a system of law such as the aforementioned provisions of the pertinent statute. [Colgate Palmolive Philippines v. Ople(1988)]

Conduct

Voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or w/o intervention from DOLE

6.

There can be no voluntary recognition  Rationale for prohibition: 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. That there are no competing unions involved should not alter that principle. The freedom of choice by the employer being the primordial consideration, besides the fact that the employees can choose between ALU, the union, and NO union. (George & Peter Lines, Inc. v. ALU, 1985) This has been a debatable topic. Even after the Supreme Court made the ruling, the DOLE still included provisions o Voluntary Recoginition in DO No. 40-03 series of 20031.

From the very nature of consent election, it is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effect of a certification 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. [Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. The Bureau Of Labor Relations (1988)] Run-off Election: 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  Conditions: 1. such a certified or consent election results in none of the 3 or more choices receiving the majority of the valid votes cast 2. the total number of votes cast for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of votes cast [Department Order No. 40-03 Series of 2003 Rule I (ss)] CERTIFICATION ELECTION BACKGROUND POLICIES AND CHARACTERISTICS BEHIND A CERTIFICATION ELECTION (IDS-DV) 1. It is not litigation, but a mere investigation of a non-adversary character 2. Object of the proceedings is not the decision of any alleged commission of wrong nor asserted deprivation of right, but is merely the determination of proper bargaining units and the ascertainment of the will and choice and choice of the employees in respect of the selection of the bargaining representative. The determination of the proceeding does not entail the entry of remedial orders or redress of rights, but culmination solely in an official designation of bargaining units and an affirmation of the employees expressed choice of

1

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, reported with the Regional Office in accordance with Rule VII, Section 2 of these Rules. Rule VI Section 2. Determination of representation status; modes. – The 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, or through certification, run-off or consent election as provided in these Rules. RULE VII: VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION Section 1. When and where to file. – In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization, the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition, 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 creationof a chartered local. Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. - 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; (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;

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 16 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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. 7. An employer-employee relationship a PRE-CONDITION before a petition for certification election can be entertained  Rationale: Without such relationship, there will be no duty to bargain on the part of either the employer or employee. 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. (Allied Free Workers Union v. Cia Maritima, 1967) the same. I.

LABOR RELATIONS

Art. 256: Organized Establishments

Organized establishment: an establishment with either a. an existing CBA; or b. duly certified bargaining agent II. Art. 257: Unorganized Establishments

Unorganized establishment: an establishment without a bargaining representative III. Art. 258: Employer-Initiated Certificate Election

8.

Non-union members are not excluded from voting in the certification election  Neither law, administrative rule nor jurisprudence requires that only employees affiliated with any labor organization may take part in a certification election. On the contrary, the plainly discernible intendment of the law is to grant the right to vote to all bona fide employees in the bargaining unit, whether they are members of a labor organization or not. [Reyes v. Trajano (1992)]

B. The BARS to a CE: Prevents the happening of a CE. a. Contract bar rule (Art. 232) b. Deadlock-bar rule c. One year bar rule Note: among all the bar rules, only the contract bar is actually in the Labor Code, the other two are in the implementing rules. C. Suspension of CE: Prejudicial question rule

7. The receipt by the excluded employees of certain benefits under the existing CBA does not bar them from forming their own labor organization and from participating in the certification election. [Barbizon v. Nagkakaisang Supervisor (1996)] STATUTORY FRAME-WORK AND POLICY

Detailed Discussion of the Framework A. The different entry points to a certification election I. Art. 256: Organized Establishment

Statutory Frame-work A. The different entry points to a certification election Note: The mechanics of the three entry-points are similar and
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit, accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the bargaining unit; and (d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor organization operating within the bargaining unit. 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. Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where there is no other registered labor union operating within the bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned. Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form, number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply with the necessary requirements. 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, the Regional Office shall return the notice for voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying documents without prejudice to its re-submission. Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. - From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and obligations of an existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit. 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, any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit represented by the voluntarily recognized union, 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.

Requisites for holding certification election: a. Verified petition, supported by at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit, questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent Filed before the DOLE withing the 60-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement

b.

Note: In relation to the one-year bar rule, a duly certified bargaining agent is allowed one year to negotiate for the signing of a CBA, that is why no CE can be filed at this time. Requisite for valid election: at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes Organized Establishment v. Unorganized Establishment (The distinctions are important because the requirements are different.) Art. 256: ORGANIZED Existing, has one Has to be a VERIFIED petition No petition for Certification election EXCEPT within 60 days before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (See Art. 253 & 253-A) Take note how SC interpreted the term “WITHIN”. What is rationale the of Art. 257: UNORGANIZED None No need to be Verified Not applicable. No freedom period. Can file petition anytime.

Bargaining agent Petition filed Freedom Period

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 17 of 62

LABOR LAW II
freedom period in Organized establishments, why is there none in unorganized establishments? It has something to do with industrial peace Must be duly supported by 25% of ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. Percentage base: all members of an appropriate bargaining unit. What is intent and purpose of law for requiring the substantial support rule? Law wants to know the intention of the employees. If they really want a CE, since they already have a bargaining agent. DISCUSSIONS ON THE FREEDOM PERIOD General Rule: 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 [Art. 232 – sec. 15 of RA 6715] Exceptions: Art. 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code (60 day freedom period)  The purpose of the prohibition against the filing of a petition for certification election outside the so-called freedom period is to ensure industrial peace between the employer and its employees during the existence of the CBA. [Republic Planters Bank Unionv. Laguesma (1996)]  The premature renewal of a CBA cannot bar the holding of a certification election by virtue of a bona fide petition filed within the freedom period if the clear intention was to frustrate the constitutional right of the employees to selforganization. [Associated Labor Union v. Calleja (1989)] DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT RULE IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS NOTE: A union that is merely filing a MOTION FOR INTERVENTION in a CE filed by another union need NOT present substantial support. The substantial support is only needed when filing for a petition for 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, may be shown within a reasonable time thereafter but should be before the election. [Port Worker’s Union of the Philippines v. Laguesma] Is the substantial support rule a mandatory requirement? If you strictly follow the letter of the law it would seem to be mandatory. However, if the petition does not comply with the

LABOR RELATIONS
substantial support requirement, the BLR may exercise its discretion in determining whether or not a certification election must be conducted. [Scout Albano Memorial College v. Noriel (1978)] Does a RIVAL union have authority to VERIFY the signatures in the substantial support requirement? No a rival union may not. Only the department of labor has authority to verify. (Today’s Knitting Free Workers Union v. Noriel,1977) NO substantial support rule. WHY? Intention of law is to bring in the union, to implement policy behind Art. 211a. 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, the employees’ withdrawal from union membership taking place after the filing of the petition for certification election will not affect the petition. On the contrary the presumption arises that the withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, coercion, or for a valuable consideration. (Oriental Tin Can Labor Union v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 1998) II. Art. 257: Unorganized Establishment Who shall file the petition under Art. 257? A LEGITIMATE labor organization. It cannot be an unregistered labor organization. This is best read in relation to Art. 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. This is one way the law encourages union registration. VENUE: Where to file? BLR region where union is. The one nearer to the employees. III. Art. 258: Employer-Initiated Petition When can an employer file a petition? Only when it is requested to bargain collectively. Principles: 1. Employer is a TOTAL STRANGER in the process of Certification Election. Employer has NO STANDING to file a MOTION TO DISMISS (Phil. Telephone Telegraph v. 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. Secretary of Labor).

Substantial support rule

2.

CONDUCTING AGENCY  1. 2. Bureau of Labor Relations [Art. 226 & 258]

All certification cases shall be decided within 20 working days The BLR shall conduct the certification election within 20 days

Certification Election–Process and Procedure DO No. 40-03 WHO may file? Sec. 1 1) Any legitimate labor organization may file a petition for certification election. 2) When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may file a petition for certification election with the Regional Office. 3) If there is no existing registered collective bargaining agreement in

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 18 of 62

LABOR LAW II
the bargaining unit, the Regional Office shall, after hearing, order the conduct of a certification election. WHERE to file? Sec. 2 Regional Office which issued the petitioning union's certificate of registration/certificate of creation of chartered local.  The petition shall be heard and resolved by the Med-Arbiter.  Where two or more petitions involving the same bargaining unit are filed in one Regional Office, the same shall be automatically consolidated with the Med-Arbiter who first acquired jurisdiction.  Where the petitions are filed in different Regional Offices, the Regional Office in which the petition was first filed shall exclude all others; in which case, the latter shall indorse the petition to the former for consolidation.

LABOR RELATIONS
be filed only within sixty (60) days prior to its expiry.

WHEN to file? Sec. 3

A petition for certification election may be filed anytime, except: (a) when a fact of voluntary recognition has been entered or a valid certification, 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.  Where an appeal has been filed from the order of the MedArbiter certifying the results of the election, the running of the one year period shall be suspended until the decision on the appeal has become final and executory; (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; (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; (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.  Where such collective bargaining agreement is registered, the petition may

What is a forced intervenor? The incumbent bargaining agent shall automatically be one of the choices in the certification election as forced intervenor. [Sec. 7 D.O. 40-03] POSTING OF NOTICE General Rule: Mandatory posting of election notices for 5 days. Exception: Posting of election notices may be waived. [Jisscor Independent Union v Torres (1993)] VOTING LIST AND VOTERS Basis of determining voters may be agreed upon by the parties (i.e. the use pf payroll) [Acoje Workers Union v NAMAWU (1963)] EFFECT NON-PARTICIPATION PREVIOUS ELECTION Failure to take part in previous elections is no bar to the right to participate in future elections. No law, administrative rule or precedent prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of neglect to exercise the right in past cases. [Reyes v. Trajano (1992)] ALL EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO VOTE 1. All rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit: The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status. All they need to be eligible to support the petition is to belong to a bargaining unit. [Airtime Specialists, Inc. v Director of BLR (1990)]

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 19 of 62

LABOR LAW II
 Rationale: Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA binds all employees in the bargaining unit. All rank and file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representative. 2. Employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a present, unabandoned right to or expectation of reemployment, are eligible to vote in certification elections. If the dismissal is under question, employees concerned could still qualify to vote in the elections. [Philippine Fruits v Torres (211 SCRA 95)]

LABOR RELATIONS
Certification Election at a glance… Filing of petition for certification election Hearing and resolution by Med-Arbiter Conduct of certification election Filing of protest at the close of the certification election Protest formalized within 5 days from close of election Appeal decision of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor Appeal to be decided within 15 calendar days

CHALLENGE VOTER An employer has no standing to question a certification election since this is the sole concern of the workers but may question the inclusion of any disqualified employee in the certification election during the exclusion-inclusion proceedings before the representation officer. [Phil. Telephone & Telegraph Co. v Laguesma (1993)] VOTING DAY The election shall be set on a regular business day. [Section 2, Rule VI,Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code] PROTEST Requirements in order that a protest filed would prosper [Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries v. Torres (1992)]: 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, and The protest must be formalized before the Med-Arbiter within five (5) days after the close of the election proceedings.

B. Bars to the Certification Election 1. THE CONTRACT BAR RULE (Art. 232)

GENERAL RULE: The bureau shall NOT entertain any petition for certification election. EXCEPT: (Freedom period)Art. 253, 253-A, 256: Within 60 days before expiration of the five year term of the CBA.  The contract bar rule can be validly invoked only if the existing CBA contains substantially those materials that should be included in the CBA at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election. [Buklod ng Saulog Transit v. Casalla (1956)] What if a CBA is not registered but validly entered into by the parties, will it bar a petition for CE? Disini: It will, applying by analogy Trade Union of Philippines v. 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. 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. The old CBA is extended until a new one is filed. The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for the stipulated original period. What if the CBA was suspended? Under Art. 253-A the representation limit for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. In the instant case, the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period. (Rivera v. Espiritu GR no. 135547 January 23, 2002) 2. DEADLOCK-BAR RULE Requisites: 1. 2. Parties must have negotiated in good faith. Deadlock must have been submitted to voluntary arbitration or a valid subject of a valid notice of strike or lock-out. ONE-YEAR BAR RULE

2.

 Protests not so raised are deemed waived. [Jisscor Independent Union v Torres (1993)] Appeal from Certification Election Orders [Art. 259] Ground: the rules and regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor for the conduct of election have been violated Period for decision: 15 calendar days  Referral of the appeal to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), a federation of labor unions is glaringly illegal and void. The Labor Code never intended that the Director of Labor Relations should abdicate, delegate and relinquish his arbitrational prerogatives in favor of a private person or entity or to a federation of trade unions. Article 226, 259, 260 are mandatory and should be strictly adhered to. They are part and parcel of the adequate administrative machinery established by the Labor Code for the expeditious settlement of labor disputes. [Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. Dir. Of Labor Relations. 91 SCRA 482] ANNULMENT  General allegation of duress is not sufficient to invalidate a certification election; it must be shown by competent and credible proof. [United Employees Union of Gelmart Inv. v. Noriel (1975)] Irregularities that may invalidate certification election: inability of workers to vote failure to safeguard secrecy of the ballot intimidation of election supervisors and neglect in performance of duties [Confederation of Citizens Labor Union v. Noriel (1982)]  c. d. e.

3.

 From time of valid certification election. Not from time of final resolution of appeal.  1. DATE OF ELECTION: Date election is certified

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 20 of 62

LABOR LAW II
2. If APPEALED, date when finally resolved

LABOR RELATIONS

C. SUSPENSION PREJUDICIAL QUESTION RULE *Should be read in relation to Art. 248d: ULP: “It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice. (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters. WHAT SUSPENDS: Formal charge of ULP against the employer for establishing a company union. WHO MAY ASK FOR SUSPENSION: Only a union. CE cannot be suspended based on a pendency of a formal charge of ULP against a labor organization. RATIONALE FOR SUSPENSION: If there is a union dominated by the company, to which some of the workers belong, 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. Such charge of company domination is a prejudicial question that until decided, 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, as a result of which a complaint for an unfair labor practice case against the employer was filed, the status of the latter union must be first cleared in such a proceeding before such voting could take place. The reason is that the certification election may lead to the selection of an employer dominated or company union as the employees' bargaining representative, and when the court finds that said union is employer-dominated in the unfair labor practice case, the union selected would be decertified and the whole election proceedings would be rendered useless and nugatory.' There would be an impairment of the integrity of the collective bargaining process if a company-dominated union were allowed to participate in a certification election. [United CMC Textile Worker’s Union v. BLR (1984)]

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 21 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part VI COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS 1. PROCEDURE Art. 250 Art. 251 Cf. Art. 233 2. DUTY TO BARGAIN Art. 252 COLLECTIVELY Art. 253 3. TERMS Art. 253-A

LABOR RELATIONS
 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. 250. o If they are unable to agree they must follow procedure in the labor code (Art. 250).  IMPLICATION: Provisions of this code are only supplementary not mandatory with regards to the process of collective bargaining. Because it is the policy of the state to promote the primacy of FREE collective bargaining. (211a). 2. CODE PROCEDURE Art. 250 Party desiring to bargain collectively shall serve written notice on other party with statement of proposals Reply by other party within 10 calendar days from receipt of notice Should differences arise, request for conference: within 10 days from date of request If dispute not settled, Board shall intervene on request or motu proprio & call parties to conciliation meetings

7.01 GENERAL CONCEPTS 1. POLICY DECLARATION 1987 Constitution. Art. XIII, Sec. 3   The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to collective bargaining and negotiations. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibilities between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

Labor Code, Art 211 (a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of setting labor or industrial disputes; 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 to stabilize the relation between labor and management and 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. So much so that Article 249, par. (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, hours of work, 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, if requested by either party. " 2. NATURE AND PURPOSE The institution of collective bargaining is a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. [United Employees Union of Gelmart Industries v. Noriel (1975)] 3. WAIVER The right to free collective bargaining includes the right to suspend it. [Rivera v. Espiritu (2000)] 7.02 BARGAINING PROCEDURE 1. PRIVATE PROCEDURE Art. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. — In the ABSCENCE of an agreement or other VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT providing for a MORE EXPEDITIOUS manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of the employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

NOTE: These procedures are DIRECTORY in nature and not mandatory, failure to comply with the prescribed time periods will not amount to an unfair labor practice. 3. CONCILIATION PROCEDURE Art. 250 (c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. During conciliation proceedings: 1. 2. 3. 4. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call; The parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; and The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. Privileged Communication (Art. 233) Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

5.

6.

7.03 DUTY TO BARGAIN Meaning of duty to bargain collectively: A. 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, 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. [Art. 252]

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 22 of 62

LABOR LAW II
1. POSITIVE STATEMENT NATURE of duty to bargain: Mutual Obligation HOW: to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith. PURPOSE: for the purpose of negotiating an agreement(CBA) NEGOTIABLE ISSUES: with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement 2. NEGATIVE STATEMENT DUTY: “…but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. “ 3. EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT: Art. 252 also states that it is part of the duty to bargain to “execute a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party.” B. When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime. [Art. 253]  Exception: either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date BUT it shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the term and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. Rights of the parties: 1. Right of legitimate labor organization to be furnished by the employer with annual audited financial statements, including the balance sheet and profit and loss statement, upon request [Art. 242 (c)] The parties shall, at the request of either of them, make available such up-to-date financial information on the economic situation of the undertaking, which is normally submitted to relevant government agencies, as is material and necessary for meaningful negotiations.

LABOR RELATIONS
obligation is an unfair labor practice. [Republic Savings Bank v. CIR (1967)] DEADLOCK Collective Bargaining Deadlock: the situation between the labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate [San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC (1999)]  Ground for strike or lockout [Rule XXII, Section I, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V the Labor Code] MINUTES OF NEGOTIATION 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. At the negotiations, it is but natural for both management and labor to adopt positions or make demands and offer proposals and counterproposals. However, nothing is considered final until the parties have reached an agreement. Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its implementation.[Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. NLRC (1998)] SUSPENSION OF BARGAINING 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. Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the employer. The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. [Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Assn. of Employees (2000)] 7.04 BARGAINABLE ISSUES BARGAINABLE ISSUES: wages, 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.   Example of what falls under this statement: Stewardess bargains for better uniforms. Example of what does not fall under this statement: A company janitor asks for a car.

2.

 Where the disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial to the undertaking, its communication may be made condition upon a commitment that it would be regarded as confidential to the extent required.  The information to be made available may be agreed upon between the parties to collective bargaining. [DO No.40-03 Seriies of 2003, RULE XVI, Section 2] DOCTRINES  While it is a mutual obligation, the employer is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. 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, (2) proof of majority representation and (3) a demand to bargain under Article 251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code. [Kiok Loy v NLRC (1986)]  Collective bargaining does not end with the execution of an agreement. It is a continuous process. 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 . . . for the purpose of adjusting any grievances or question arising under such agreement" and a violation of this

Importance of determining whether an issue is a mandatory bargaining issue or only a permissive bargaining issue: "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. 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; 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; 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." [Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form v. NLRC (1998)]  The consequences are different for the refusal to bargain.  If mandatory issue, refusal to bargain could lead to: - A case of Unfair Labor Practice - May be a valid ground for a strike or lockout

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 23 of 62

LABOR LAW II
 If permissive issue, refusal to bargain will NOT produce a case for ULP, NOR will it allow that economic weapons be used. Cannot strike or lockout.

LABOR RELATIONS
REGISTRATION – PERIOD, REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS Art. 231 - Registry of unions and file of CBAs Within 30 days from execution of CBA, parties must submit copies to Bureau or DOLE Regional Office for registration, accompanied by verified proofs of posting in workplace and ratification Bureau or Regional Offices to act on application within 5 days from receipt of CBA Regional Offices to furnish Bureau copy within 5 days from submission Bureau or Regional Office shall assess employer a registration fee Bureau shall maintain file of all CBAs and other related agreements General Rule: The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties Exceptions: 1. no specific information submitted I confidence shall be disclosed unless authorized by the Secretary of Labor 2. when it is at issue in any judicial litigation when public interest or national security so requires CONTRACT BENEFICIARIES Who are the beneficiaries to a CBA? All workers in an ABU In a long line of cases, this Court has held that when a collective bargaining contract is entered into by the union representing the employees and the employer, even the nonmember employees are entitled to the benefits of the contract. To accord its benefits only to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against nonmembers. [New Pacific Timber and Supply v. NLRC (2000)] CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Nature of the Contract  In Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz, we held that “the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right to go to court for redress.” [Babcock-Hitachi (Phils.) V. Babcock-Hitachi (2005)]  A collective bargaining agreement, just like any other contract, is respected as the law between the contracting parties and compliance therewith in good faith is mandated. Similarly, the rules embodied in the Civil Code on the proper interpretation of contracts can very well govern. The intention of the parties is primodial; if the terms of the contract are clear, the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control, but if the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. [Kimberly Clark Phils. V. Lorredo (1993)] GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE; Dispute issues and Individual Grievance Art. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. – What is to be included in the CBA? 1. 2. provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from: a. the interpretation or implementation of their CBA and

Guidelines: 1. The question of minimum wage is not negotiable.Phil American Mgt Co. v. Phil. American Mgt Employees (1973) Retirement plan is negotiable. [Nestle Phil. V NLRC (1991)]

2.

7.05 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Definition: a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement.  Note: While the terms and conditions of a CBA constitute the law between the parties, it is not, however, an ordinary contract to which is applied the principles of law governing ordinary contracts. A CBA, as a labor contract within the contemplation of Article 1700 Civil Code which governs the relations between labor and capital, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest, thus, it must yield to the common good. [Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abrquez (93)] CONTENTS Effect Sub-standard Contract: entering into CBA which provides terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law is a ground for cancellation of union registration [Art. 239 (f)] Duration and Re-negotiation Art. 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. POLITICAL ASPECT: Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five (5) years.  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. ECONOMIC ASPECT: All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its execution.  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, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date.  If any such agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of the retroactivity thereof.  In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the CBA, the parties may exercise their rights under this Code. Grievance Procedure What are subject of the grievance procedure for adjustment and resolution are grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective bargaining agreement. [Navarro III v. Damasco (1995)]

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 24 of 62

LABOR LAW II
b. Procedure: 1. parties to a CBA shall: a. name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, OR b. 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 Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board.  In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the CBA, 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. those arising from the interpretation enforcement of company personnel policies. or

LABOR RELATIONS
the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached. In this manner, the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the collective bargaining parties. Another legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed only respectively unless there are legal justifications for its retroactive application. [Manila Electric Co. V. Quisumbing (1999)]  Art. 253-A refers to CBA’s entered into by the parties as a result of their mutual agreement. The CBA in this case, on the other hand, is part of an arbitral award. As such, it may be made retroactive to the date of expiration of the previous agreement. Therefore, 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, such as herein involved, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof. [Manila Central Line Corp. v. Manila Central Line Free Workers Union (1998)] CBA and 3rd Party Applicability Rule  Labor contracts such as employment contracts and CBAs are not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise, labor contracts being in personam, thus binding only between the parties. [Sundowner Dev’t. Corp. v Drilon (1989)]  Indeed, an innocent transferee of a business establishment has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue employing them. Nor is the transferee liable for past unfair labor practices of the previous owner, except, when the liability therefor is assumed by the new employer under the contract of sale, or when liability arises because of the new owner's participation in thwarting or defeating the rights of the employees. The most that the transferee may do, for reasons of public policy and social justice, is to give preference to the qualified separated employees in the filling of vacancies in the facilities of the purchaser. [Manlimos v. NLRC (1995)] Disaffiliation: Doctrine of Substitution  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, but the CBA continues to exist. [Benguet Consolidated, Inc. v BCI Employees and Workers Union—PAFLU (1968)] WON the terms of an existing CBA particularly as to the economic provisions, can be extended beyond the three year period prescribed by law in the absence of a new agreement? YES. Until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties, they are duty bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreements. 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, therefore it encompasses all provisions. The New CBA is given PROSPECTIVE effect generally since 253 and 253-A provides for an automatic renewal clause in existing CBAs.  PURPOSE: To avoid creating a gap during which no agreement would govern. Better for industrial peace if effectivity of the CBA is longer. [New Pacific Timber and Supply Co. Inc v. NLRC (2000)]

2. 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. 3. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. [Art. 255] Doctrines: 1. 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.[Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC (1993)] No particular setup for a grievance machinery is mandated by law. Rather, Article 260 of the Labor Code, as incorporated by RA 6715, 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.". [Caltex Refinery Employees Association v. Brilliantes (1997)]

2.

Contract Duration And Renewals Art. 253-A Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.  Art. 253-A serves as the guide in determining when the CBA at bar is to take effect. It provides that the representation aspect of the CBA is to be for a term of 5 years, while . . . [A]ll other provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution. 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. If such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months, the parties shall agree on the duration of the effectivity thereof. . . . . - Under these terms, it is clear that the 5- year term requirement is specific to the representation aspect. What the law additionally requires is that a CBA must be re-negotiated within 3 years "after its execution." It is in this re-negotiation that gives rise to the present CBA deadlock. - If no agreement is reached within 6 months from the expiry date of the 3 years that follow the CBA execution, the law expressly gives the parties — not anybody else — the discretion to fix the effectivity of the agreement. - Significantly, the law does not specifically cover the situation where 6 months have elapsed but no agreement has been reached with respect to effectivity. In this eventuality, we hold that any provision of law should then apply for the law abhors a vacuum. - One such provision is the principle of hold over, i.e., that in the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 25 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part VII UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
8.01 INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 1. DEFINITION AND GENERAL CONCEPT Art. 212 (k), LC Unfair labor practice - means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code. 4. ESTOPPEL

LABOR RELATIONS

Standard Chartered Bank Union v. Confesor (2004) The eventual signing of the CBA does not operate to estop the parties from raising unfair labor practice charges against each other 5. INTER-RELATIONS OF ACTS OF ULP

Art. 248 Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization; Art. 249 Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives: a. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;

Art. 247, LC  Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to selforganization These are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. Unfair Labor Practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses

Note the difference between the wordings of Art. 248(a) and Art. 249(a). Art. 248 (a) – “interfere, restraint, coerce”

PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: protection of right to self-organization 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

Art. 249(a) – “restraint, coerce”  “interfere” not included in Art. 249 because any act of a labor organization amounts to interference to a right to self-organization

Art. 248 (a) and Art. 249(a) are the general grant of protection. All other cases of ULP enumerated under the said provisions are derivatives of Art. 248(a) and Art. 249 (a)

Philcom Employees Union v. Phil. Global (2006) Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices. The only exception is Art. 248 (f) [i.e. to dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code] 2. REQUISITE RELATIONSHIP American President Lines v. Clave (1982) An unfair labor practice may be committed only within the context of an employer-employee relationship 3. CONSTRUCTION HSBC Employee Union V. NLRC (1997) The Labor Code 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 law's general prohibitory language in light of infinite combinations of events which may be charged as violative of its terms.

8.02 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTS VIOLATING RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANZATION ULP AND MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS Royal InterOcean Lines v. CIR (1960) The protection of workers' right to self-organization does not interfere with employer's freedom to enforce such rules and orders as are necessary to [the] proper conduct of his business, 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. It is the function of the court to see to it that the rights of selforganization and collective bargaining guaranteed by the Act are amply secured to the employee, but in its effort to prevent unfair labor practices, the court must be mindful of the welfare of the honest employer. Despite the employees' right to self-organization, the employer therefore still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees, his normal prerogative to hire or dismiss them. The prohibition is directed only against the use of the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of discrimination, interference or oppression because of one's labor or union activities.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 26 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. (1999) While an act or decision of an employer may be unfair, certainly not every unfair act or decision constitutes unfair labor practice (ULP) as defined and enumerated under Art. 248 of the Labor Code. All the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the workers' right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may be held liable under this provision if his conduct affects in whatever manner the right of an employee to selforganize. The decision of employer [GREPALIFE] to consider the top officers of union as unfit for reinstatement is not essentially discriminatory and constitutive of an unlawful labor practice of employers under the above-cited provision. 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. 1. INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT AND COERCION Art. 248 (a), LC It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: a. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

LABOR RELATIONS
This particular provision signifies what is known as a yellow dog contract. A typical yellow dog contract embodies the following stipulations: a. a representation by the employee that member of a labor organization b. he is not a

a promise by the employee that he will not join a union

c. a promise by the employee that upon joining a labor organization, he will quit his employment 3. CONTRACTING OUT TO DISCOURAGE UNIONISM Art. 248 (c), LC 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; The act of an employer in having certain services or functions being performed by union members contracted out is NOT per se an unfair labor practice act. It is only when the contracting out of the services or functions being performed by union members will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization that it shall be unlawful and shall constitute ULP act. [Sec. 6 (f) DOLE Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002] 4. COMPANY DOMINATION UNION Art. 248 (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters; 5. DISCRIMINATION ENCOURAGE/DISCOURAGE UNIONISM Art. 248 (e), LC GENERAL RULE: It shall be unlawful 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. EXCEPTION: 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 EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: Those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. 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, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that the individual authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;

Art. 255, LC 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. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment.

Art. 277 (g), LC The Department shall help promote and gradually develop, with the agreement of labor organizations and employers, labor-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, working conditions and the quality of working life. 2. NON-UNION MEMBERSHIP OR WITHDRAWAL MEMBERSHIP AS CONDITION EMPLOYMENT Art. 248 (b), LC 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; FROM

CLOSED-SHOP – may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are part of. [Del Monte v. Saldivar (2007)]

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 27 of 62

LABOR LAW II
UNION SECURITY CLAUSE – is a stipulation in the CBA whereby the management recognizes that the membership of employees in the union which negotiated the said agreement should be maintained and continued as a condition for employment or retention of employment. Its purpose is to safeguard and ensure the continued existence of the union. Different kinds of Union Security Clause a. Closed shop agreement b. Union shop agreement c. Agency shop agreement d. Maintenance of membership agreement e. Check off f. Modified closed shop agreement g. Modified union shop agreement h. Open shop agreement Del Monte v. Saldivar (2007) Under the Labor Code, a dismissal may only be effected for any just or authorized causes as provided by the said law. A dismissal based on a union security clause of company CBA is not enumerated as one of the just or authorized causes in the Labor Code. But jurisprudence recognized that “it is a State policy to promote unionism to enable workers to negotiate with management on an even level playing field and with more persuasiveness than if they were individually and separately bargain with the employer.” For this reason, the law has allowed stipulations for “union shop” and “closed shop” as a means of encouraging workers to join ands support the union of their choice in the protection of their rights and interests vis-à-vis the employer. Even though the law recognizes union shop agreement as valid, yet it cannot be used as a means to guarantee to the union an unmitigated discretion in terminating the employment status on an employee-member. Therefore, the requirements laid down by the law in determining whether or not an employee was validly terminated must still be followed even if it is based on a closedshop provision of a CBA, i.e. the substantive as well as the procedural due process requirements. 6. RETALIATION TESTIMONY AGAINST EMPLOYER Art. 248 (f), LC To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;

LABOR RELATIONS
An employer is not denied the privilege of interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation, provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and assurance is given by the employer that no reprisals would be taken against unionists. Nonetheless, 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. When the interrogation and investigation by the company’s supervisory officials of the employees in such a way that it hampers the exercise of their right to self-organization, ULP is committed. The subjection by the company of union to vilification and its participation in soliciting membership for a competing union is also ULP act. Speech Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971) Indeed, 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. And the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is that although the union is on strike, the employer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative. This is tantamount to an illegal act of interference. The sending of letter containing promises of benefits to the individual employees in order to entice them to return to work is not protected by the free speech provision of the Constitution. The same is true with letters containing threats to obtain replacements for the striking employees in the event they do not report to work on a certain date. The free speech protection under the Constitution is inapplicable where the expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains promise of benefits, threats or reprisals. Espionage Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971) As regard to espionage, it is said that “picketing is inherently explosive”. As pointed out by one author, “The picket line is an explosive front, charged with the emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-management dispute. It is marked by colorful namecalling, intimidating threats or sporadic fights between the pickets and those who pass the line.” It has been held in a great number of decisions that espionage by the employer of union activities, or surveillance thereof, are such instances of interference, restraint or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize, form and join unions as to constitute unfair labor practice. Nothing is more calculated to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization than such activity even where no discharge results. The information obtained by means of espionage is invaluable to the employer and can be used in a variety of cases to break a union. The unfair labor practice is committed whether espionage is carried on by a professional labor spy or detective, by officials or supervisory employees of the employer, or by fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer or an ex-employee Economic Coercion And Inducement Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971) Indeed, when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots," "free coffee and occasional movies," "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours," and "arrangements" for their families, so they would abandon the strike and return to work, they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and, consequently, of unfair labor practice. It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to striking employees individually, when they are represented by a union, since the employees thus offered

7. EXACTION- FEATHERBEDDING

Art. 249 (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, 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;

NATURE OF ACT Interrogation Scoty’s Dept. Store v. Micaller (1956) 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, have been uniformly condemned as an unfair labor practice. Phil. Steam Navigation Co. v. Phil. Marine Officer’s Guild (1965)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 28 of 62

LABOR LAW II
reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be. Likewise violative of the right to organize, form and join labor organizations are the following acts:  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; wage increases given for the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union, or for the purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work; the employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union; and the employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the strike started, to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work, they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization, accident insurance, profit-sharing, and a new building to work in. Union Solicitation And Distribution Of Literature And Materials Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB 324 US 793 (1945) The Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the Board to strike the balance in favor of employees challenging an employer's no-solicitation policy. The Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that employees have a presumptive right to wear union insignia, a right that cannot be abridged unless the employer is able to establish that a special circumstance exists, which justifies banning such insignia. Discrimination Wise and Co. v. Wise and Co. Employees Union-NATU (1989) The grant of profit-sharing benefits to managers, supervisors and all rank-and-file employees not covered by the CBA is not discriminatory but a valid exercise of management prerogative. Run-Away Shop Complex Electronics Employees Association v. NLRC (1999) A RUNAWAY SHOP is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes. A “runaway shop” in this sense, is a relocation motivated by antiunion animus rather than for business reasons. 8.03 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 1. VIOLATE DUTY TO BARGAIN To employers

LABOR RELATIONS
Art. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: a. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice; b. 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. c. If the dispute is not settled, 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 Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call; d. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; and e. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.

Art. 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, 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. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively.  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, 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.

Art. 248 (f) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code; To labor organizations

Art. 249 (c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees;

Art. 253 Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement.  When there is a collective bargaining agreement, o the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. 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. 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.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 29 of 62

LABOR LAW II
General Milling Corp. v. 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. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the workers, was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless. We hold that GMC’s refusal to make a counter-proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively. Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice. Perforce, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC is, under the circumstances, guilty of unfair labor practice. Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Association (2000) The school is guilty of unfair labor practice when it failed to make a timely reply to the proposals of the union more than one month after the same were submitted by the union. In explaining its failure to reply, the school merely offered a feeble excuse that its Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter. Clearly, its actuation showed a lack of sincere desire to negotiate. 2. NEGOTIATION OR ATTORNEY’S FEES Art. 248 (f), LC 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; or

LABOR RELATIONS
8.04 EMPLOYER FUNCTIONS AND ULP

3. VIOLATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Art. 248 To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

Art. 249 (f), LC To violate a collective bargaining agreement Art. 261 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.  x x x. Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  For purposes of this article, gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. x x x

Singapore Airlines Employees Association v. NLRC (1984) An error in the interpretation of a provision of the CBA, absent any malice or bad faith, is not an unfair labor practice. Honest differences in construction may arise in the actual application of contractual provisions. PAL V. NLRC (1997) Violations of collective bargaining agreements were no longer deemed unfair labor practices - except those gross in character i. e. flagrant and malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions thereof - and were considered mere grievances resolvable through the appropriate grievance machinery, or voluntary arbitration provided in the CBA.

San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. 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, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between itself, on the one hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other, o a labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1], Labor Code, supra) provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof (ibid). o Put differently, and as defined by law, 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. That a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does exist herein is evident. At bottom, what the Union seeks is to regularize the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite and, in effect, that they be absorbed into the working unit of SanMig. This matter definitely dwells on the working relationship between said employees vis-a-vis SanMig. o Terms, tenure and conditions of their employment and the arrangement of those terms are thus involved bringing 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 (NCMB-NCR-NS-O1-021-89; NCMB NCR NS-01-093-83). 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,

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 30 of 62

LABOR LAW II
o However, the rights of all workers to self-organization, 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.

LABOR RELATIONS
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 selforganization and collective bargaining." (Francisco, Labor Laws 1956, Vol. II, p. 323, citing NLRB v. Ford, C.A., 1948, 170 F2d 735). 8.06 ENFORCEMENT, REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS

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 act of the employer in provoking the union officers into a fight by two recently hired employees pursuant to a strategy of the company designed to provide an apparently lawful cause for their dismissal, and said dismissed employees have not figured in similar incidents before or violated company rules in their several years with the company are deemed as an unfair labor practice. Me-Shurn Corp. v. Me-Shurn Workers Union (2005) To justify the closure of a business and the termination of the services of the concerned employees, the law requires that the employer prove that it suffered substantial actual losses. The cessation of the company’s operations shortly after the organization of a labor union as well as the resumption of business barely a month after, gives credence to the employees’ claim that the closure was meant to discourage union membership and to interfere in union activities. These acts constitute unfair labor practices. The reason invoked by petitioners to justify the cessation of corporate operations was alleged business losses which they, however, failed to substantiate by any credible evidence. St. John Colleges Inc. v. St. John Academy Faculty and Employees Union (2006) Under the circumstances, it is not difficult to discern that the closure was done to defeat the parties’ agreement to refer the labor dispute to the Secretary of Labor; to unilaterally end the bargaining deadlock; to render nugatory any decision of the Secretary of Labor; and to circumvent the Union’s right to collective bargaining and its members’ right to security of tenure. By admitting that the closure was due to irreconcilable differences between the Union and school management, specifically, the financial aspect of the ongoing CBA negotiations, SJCI in effect admitted that it wanted to end the bargaining deadlock and eliminate the problem of dealing with the demands of the Union. This is precisely what the Labor Code abhors and punishes as unfair labor practice since the net effect is to defeat the Union’s right to collective bargaining. 2. TOTALITY OF CONDUCT RULE AND EFFECT OF FAILURE OF ACT TOTALITY OF CONDUCT DOCTRINE It means that expressions of opinion by an employer though innocent in themselves, may be held to be constitutive of unfair labor practice because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, 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. [Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Ass’n. v. Insular Life (1971)] Effect of Failure of the Act

1. PARTIES AGAINST WHOM ULP COMMITTED Art. 212, LC (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 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.

LABOR ORGANIZATION Art. 249 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 AND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD CIVIL ASPECT Art. 247, LC

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 31 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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.

LABOR RELATIONS
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. 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." Thus, in the agreement, each party made concessions in favor of the other to avoid a protracted litigation. While we do not abandon the rule that "unfair labor practice acts are beyond and outside the sphere of compromises," the agreement herein was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, thus it binds the parties. On this score, the Labor Code bestows finality to unvitiated compromise agreements. The private respondents' cause likewise fails in light of Article 2037 of the Civil Code, which gives compromise agreements "the effect and authority of res judicata" upon the parties to the same, even when effected without judicial approval. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC therefore erroneously reviewed an issue which had already been laid to rest by the parties themselves and which, applying the principle of res judicata, they could no longer relitigate. 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. 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. 5. REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS CIVIL REMEDIES Art. 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.  xx Nueva Ecija I. Electric Coop. Inc. v. NLRC (2000) Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and exemplary damages on private respondent. PENAL REMEDIES Art. 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. 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.

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: o 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) Unfair labor practices are not subject to compromises in any event in view of the public interest involved therein. AFP Mutual Benefit Association Inc. v. FP MBAI-EU (1980)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 32 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part VIII CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
9.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES 3. CONSTITUTION Art. XIII. Section 3  It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,  and peaceful concerted activities, - including the RIGHT TO STRIKE - in accordance with law. PURPOSE AND MEANS TEST  Purpose: For purpose of enforcing right to: 1. Self-Organization (Strikes against ULP) and 2. Collective bargaining and negotiations (economic strikes based on bargaining deadlock) Means: Peaceful and in accordance with law 9. DEFINITION 6. LIMITATIONS

LABOR RELATIONS

A strike be declared only after the most thoughtful consultation, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance to a return-to-work order in industries affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect. (BLT Bus Company v. NLRC, 1992)

9.02 STRIKE ACTIVITY

4.

Art. 212(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Strike - any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Labor dispute - any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. (Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation-Solidarity Unions in the Phil v. CA, 2005)

Luzon Marine Dept. Union v. 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; to prevent or avert them and to implement section 6, Article XIV of the Constitution, the law has created several agencies, namely: the Bureau of Labor, the Department of Labor, the Labor-Management Advisory Board, and the Court of Industrial Relations. Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 mandate the following procedural steps to be followed before a strike may be staged: 1. filing of notice of strike, 2. taking of strike vote, and 3. reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment.  these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. (Stamford Marketing Corp v. Julian, 2004)

The term “strike” shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities. (Samahang Manggagawa v. Sulpicio Lines, 2004)

Basic Concepts: 1. Initiating Party: Employer: Lockout Union: Strike 2. 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. 212.  Welga ng Bayan (Political Strike) is not a valid strike under the Labor Code since no labor dispute is involved. 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. However, the employee may suffer the consequence of abandonment of work  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. Temporary in Nature 3. Employee-Employer relationship continues to exist. Mere participation in a strike is not a ground for termination 10. NATURE AND PURPOSE A strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed. (Phil. Can Co. v. CIR, 1950) 11. EFFECT ON WORK RELATIONSHIP Although during a strike the worker renders no work or service and receives no compensation, yet his relationship as an employee with his employer is not severed or dissolved. (Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. v. SSS, 1972)

4. STATUTORY
Art. 263 Strikes, picketing and lockouts. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities  for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.  The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout,  consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected.  However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout  on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.  The Constitution and the law set limitation for the exercise of the right to strike or lock-out. It is the most regulated activity. Constitution Labor Code In accordance with law Consistent with National Interest

5. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Article 8 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure: (d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 33 of 62

LABOR LAW II
12. TYPES, CHANGES AND CONVERSION TYPES  Art. 263 Strikes, picketing and lockouts. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, 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.  In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. f. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.  Bargaining Deadlock – Economic ALLOWABLE STRIKES Art. 263 Strikes, picketing and lockouts.

LABOR RELATIONS

Unfair Labor Practice

(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, 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. 3. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. 4. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. PROHIBITED STRIKES Art. 263 (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. Effect of Assumption Order pursuant to Art. 263 (g): 1) Strike/Lockout automatically enjoined 2) Striking/Locked Out employees shall immediately return to work 3) Employer shall resume operations and readmit all workers In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts 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, it shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, 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 backwages, 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 from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.

Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Marsman and Co. (1984) economic strike - one which is to forge wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. CHANGE IN TYPE  it is possible to change an economic strike into a ULP strike Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Marsman and Co. (1984) Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one, and the striking employees would have a right to be reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them. 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, and is not bound to discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to resume their employment. 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. It was then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. 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. It stopped the strike upon the belief they could go back to work. 3. Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination practiced by the Company. 4. Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. NON-CONVERSION – STRIKE TO LOCKOUT A strike CANNOT be converted into a pure and simple lockout by the mere expedient of filing before the trial court a notice of offer to return to work during the pendency of the labor dispute between the union and the employer. (Rizal Cement Workers Union v. CIR, 1962) 13. GROUNDS Valid grounds for strike: 1) Bargaining Deadlock (BD) (Art. 263) 2) ULP (Art. 263)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 34 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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. (Art. 264) 3.

LABOR RELATIONS
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.

a.

WAGE DISTORTION cannot be a ground for strike. A SLOWDOWN or a “strike on an installment plan” is prohibited. It is a willful reduction in the rate of work by the concerted action of the employees for the purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute. It is an activity by which workers, without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands. Such act is inherently illicit and unjustifiable because while the employees continue to work, they, at the same time, select what part of their duties they perform. In essence, they work on their own terms. (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC, 1991)

15. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Requisites of a valid strike/lockout: 1) Good faith bargaining has been conducted in accordance with Art. 250 (Art. 264, a) 2) The following procedural requisites are met: (Art. 263; c, f) a. Notice of Strike/Lockout – 0 (Union Busting) or 15 (ULP) or 30 (BD) days cooling-off period; filed with DOLE b. Strike/Lockout Vote – approved by a majority of union members/board of directors or partners through secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose c. Notice of Result of Strike/Lockout Vote – filed with DOLE at least 7 days before the intended date of strike 3) Must be based on valid grounds 4) The strike or lockout must be pursued within the bounds of the law (Art. 264) Also, take note of the following: 5) Statutory prohibition as to striking workers (i.e. Government employees can organize but cannot strike) 6) If an injunction is subsequently ordered, strike/lockout must cease 7) No-Strike Clause in CBA – affects only economic strikes, not strikes based on ULP Duty of DOLE during cooling-off period: to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. Piñero v. NLRC (2004) Under Art. 263, the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: 3. a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of unfair labor practice 4. 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; 5. notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike.  These requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC (2005) Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263, paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date, 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, if and when it decides to exercise its power of supervision. 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; (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; and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon the request of an interested party including the employer, to supervise the strike vote, to give it ample time to prepare for the deployment of the requisite personnel, including peace officers if need be.

A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. As this Court ruled in Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., under Article 264(a) of the said code, once an assumption certification order is issued by the SOLE, strikes are enjoined or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to work. (GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V. GRAND LABOR ORGANIZATION, 2003)

NO STRIKE CLAUSE  applicable only to economic strikes, not ULP strikes A "no strike, no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. (Panay Electric Co. v. NLRC, 1995; Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Ramos, 2000)

14.

STRIKING PARTY

Who may file (IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6): 1) If based on ULP, any Legitimate Labor Organization (in the absence of SEBA) 2) If based on BD, SEBA

Where to file (IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 1): National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Art. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. c. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. d. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, 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.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 35 of 62

LABOR LAW II

Requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. (Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting CorporationSolidarity Unions in the Phil. For Employment and Reforms v. CA, 2005)

LABOR RELATIONS
parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings. 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, which may be prevented through an injunction in accordance with Article 254. Clearly, public respondent should have granted the injunctive relief to prevent the grave damage brought about by the unlawful strike. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Ramos (2000) Petitioners believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by the federation, respondent company was guilty of unfair labor pratice in that it violated the petitioner’s right to selforganization. The strike was staged to protest respondent company’s act of dismissing the union officers.  Even if the allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to be untrue, the presumption of legality of the strike prevails. Guidelines and Balancing of Interest Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell Co. of the Phils (1971) A strike otherwise valid, if violent in character, maybe placed beyond the pale. Care is to be taken, however, especially where an unfair labor practice is involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality just because it is tainted by such acts. To avoid rendering illusory the recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such a case should be individual and not collective. A different conclusion would be called for, of course, if the existence of force while the strike lasts is pervasive and widespread, consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. It could be reasonably concluded then that even if justified as to ends, it becomes illegal because of the means employed'. This is not by any means to condone the utilization of force by labor to attain its objectives. It is only to show awareness that in labor conflicts, the tension that fills the air as well as the feeling of frustration and bitterness could break out in sporadic acts of violence. If there be in this case a weighing of interests in the balance, the ban the law imposes on unfair labor practices by management that could provoke a strike and its requirement that it be conducted peaceably, it would be, to repeat, unjustified, considering all the facts disclosed, to stamp the strike with illegality. It is enough that individual liability be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence that call for loss of employee status. Such an approach is reflected in our recent decisions. DEFENSES – GOOD FAITH - ULP Gen. Rule: A strike based on non-strikeable grounds is illegal Exception: Employees believe in good faith that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to strike (Interwood Employees Assoc v. Int’l Hardwood, 1956) Interwood Employees Assoc. v. Int’l Hardwood (1956) An established caveat, however, is that a mere claim of good faith would not justify the holding of a strike under the aforesaid exception as, in addition thereto, the circumstances must have warranted such belief. It is, therefore, 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. PNOC Dockyard v. NLRC (1998) Although rejecting that PNOC and its subsidiaries were guilty of discrimination, 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 practice were committed by the employer. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing factor for staging a strike."  Indeed, the presumption of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is subsequently found to be untrue, provided that the union and its members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment.

16. TEST OF LEGALITY LEGAL STRIKES Purpose and Means Test Luzon Marine Dept Union v. Roldan (1950) In the case of Rex Taxicab Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations (70 Phil., 621), wherein this Supreme Court held that "the employee, tenant or laborer is inhibited from striking or walking out of his employment only when so enjoined by the Court of Industrial Relations," c. it was also held that "in cases not falling within the prohibition, the legality or illegality of a strike depends, first, upon the purpose for which it is maintained, and, second, upon the means employed in carrying it on." d. Thus, if the purpose which the laborers intend to accomplish by means of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if in carrying on the strike the strikers should commit violence or cause injuries to persons or damage to property  the strike, although not prohibited by injunction, may be declared by the court illegal, with the adverse consequences to the strikers. Caltex Phil. Inc. v. Phil Labor Org. Caltex Chapter (1953) Our constitutional government assures the ER against deprivation of their property except in accordance with the statutes or supplementary equitable principles. Philippine Marine Officers Guild v. Cia. Maritima (1968) Acts of violence in this jurisdiction, when committed in carrying on a strike are not to be overlooked in determining its legality or illegality.  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.  If a strike is unjustified as when it is declared for trivial, unjust or unreasonable purpose, the employer may not be compelled to reinstate the strikers to their employment. More so, when the strike is carried on illegally. San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC (2003) Pursuant to Article 218 (e), the coercive measure of injunction may be used to restrain an actual or threatened unlawful strike. In the case at bar, petitioner sought a permanent injunction to enjoin the respondent’s strike. A strike is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. However, to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. 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. Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the lack of which shall render a strike illegal. Clearly, therefore, applying the aforecited ruling to the case at bar, when the NCMB ordered the preventive mediation on May 2, 1994, respondent had thereupon lost the notices of strike it had filed. Subsequently, however, it still defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was ongoing, and notwithstanding the letteradvisories of NCMB warning it of its lack of notice of strike. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a blatant violation of the Implementing Rules, which explicitly oblige the

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 36 of 62

LABOR LAW II
ILLEGAL STRIKES Basis – Illegality In essence (based on Arts. 263-264), a strike is illegal if: 1) No good faith bargaining has been conducted yet 2) The strike is not based on valid grounds 3) Procedural requirements are not met 4) Any of the prohibited acts stated in Art. 264 is done Phil. Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union (2006) Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. In this case, the union was never the sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) of the bargaining unit. Its move to bargain collectively “for its members” only tends to fragment the workers’ interest. Likewise, The union still went on strike on Nov. 29, 1997 despite the fact that in a couple of days, on Dec. 1, 1997, there was a scheduled conciliatory meeting between the parties. Effect of Illegality Effect of Illegal Strike (Art. 264): 1) To Union Officer – loss of employment 2) To Union Member – None (loss of employment ONLY IF illegal acts are committed during such strike) Effect of Illegal Lockout (Art. 264): 1) To Dismissed Employees – reinstatement with full backwages San Juan de Dios etc. v. San Juan de Dios (2004) Despite the receipt of an order from then SOLE to return to their respective jobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Consequently, then, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. The respondent Foundation was, thus, justified in terminating the employment of the petitioner Union’s officers. Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian (2004) Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination from employment of a union officer. The law, however, treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members. The Labor Code protects an ordinary, rankand-file union member who participated in such a strike from losing his job, provided that he did not commit an illegal act during the strike. Thus, absent any clear, substantial and convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike, an ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work. With respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute they could be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. Union officers are duty- bound to guide their members to respect the law. Nonetheless, as in other termination cases, union officers must be given the required notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their explanation prove unsatisfactory. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for participating in an illegal strike. 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. In this case, petitioners did not give the required notices to the union officers. Employment of Strike Breakers Art. 264 (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.

LABOR RELATIONS
Art. 212(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or collective bargaining. Run-Away Shop  one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes Complex Electronics Employees Assoc v. 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. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics, a runaway shop. Held: The Union's contentions are untenable. 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. A “runaway shop” in this sense, is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. In this case, however, Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent company. 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 may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex, but this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction of the corporation. As very clearly established, the closure was triggered by the customers' pull-out of their equipment, machinery and materials, who were alarmed by the pending labor dispute and the imminent strike by the union, 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. Burden of Economic Loss Crownwell Commercial Employees & Laborer’s Union v. CIR (1964) At the outset, two types of employees involved in this case must be distinguished, namely, those who were discriminatorily dismissed for union activities and those who voluntarily went on strike. Gen. Rule: Striking employees are entitled to reinstatement whether or not the strike was the consequence of the employer's unfair labor practice Exception: Employees may be denied reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of violence Note: Refer to Philippine Diamond Case (2006) Consolidated Labor Assoc. v. Marsman & Co. (1964) We now come to the question of backpay. In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees. During the time that the strike was an economic one, complainants had no right to back pay. The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice with respect to such time, as none had so far been committed. This being an unfair labor practice case, it cannot, therefore, order reinstatement much less back pay for that period. On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts of violence, 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.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 37 of 62

LABOR LAW II
SSS 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." "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.' If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but "as illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer's time." Phil. Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union (2006) In Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) v. Court of Industrial Relations, this Court made a distinction between two types of employees involved in a ULP: those who are discriminatorily dismissed for union activities, and those who voluntarily go on strike even if it is in protest of an ULP. Discriminatorily dismissed employees were ordered entitled to backpay from the date of the act of discrimination, that is, from the day of their discharge, whereas employees who struck as a voluntary act of protest against what they considered a ULP of their employer were held generally not entitled to backpay. Jurisprudential law, however, recognizes several exceptions to the "no backwages rule," to wit: - when the employees were illegally locked to thus compel them to stage a strike; - when the employer is guilty of the grossest form of ULP; - when the employer committed discrimination in the rehiring of strikers refusing to readmit those against whom there were pending criminal cases while admitting nonstrikers who were also criminally charged in court; or - when the workers who staged a voluntary ULP strike offered to return to work unconditionally but the employer refused to reinstate them. Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes Art. 265 Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, 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. When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. In case of a lockout, 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. 4. 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, the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement 9.03 PICKETING Definition: PICKETING – consists in walking or patrolling the vicinity of a place of business involved in a labor dispute to inform the public about the dispute. Requisites of a valid picket: 1) Aim is to inform public about the labor dispute 2) Must be conducted peacefully - NOT carried on with intimidation, threats, coercion, force - NOT accompanied with vandalism - NO obstruction of ingress/egress in place of business 3.

LABOR RELATIONS
 NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE Security Bank Employees Union v. Security Bank and Trust Co. (1968) This is not to say that picketing, like freedom of expression in general, has no limits. Certainly, to the extent that it is an instrument of coercion rather than of persuasion, it cannot rightfully be entitled to the protection associated with free speech. Equally so, there can be no indiscriminate ban on the freedom to disseminate the facts of a labor dispute and to appeal for public sympathy, which is the aim of peaceful picketing, without a transgression of the Constitution, sufficient to oust a court of jurisdiction, even on the assumption that it was originally possessed of such a competence, which was not so in this case as had been earlier made clear. PAFLU V. Cloribel (1969) The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, 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, including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. 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.  PICKETING AND LIBEL LAWS PCIB V. Philnabank Employees (1981) There is a unique aspect to this action for libel against the Philippine National Bank Employees' Association. It was filed by plaintiff PCIB as a result of placards and signboards along the PNB building in Escolta, Manila, containing the following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?" There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike, fortunately lasting only for one day. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to picket. From the time of Mortera vs. CIR, 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. The latest case in point where such a principle was reaffirmed expressly is Associated Labor Union v. Gomez, a 1980 decision. There is no mention of the other placards but it is not unlikely that to bolster its claim, mention was likewise made and in bold letters at that of such alleged failing of its management. That was the aim and intent as found by the lower court. That could not very well be disputed by plaintiff-appellant. Unfortunately, the offending imputation, but in the form of a question, was included. It was due to a former official of plaintiff appellant's bank who was thereafter named as President of the Philippine National Bank. 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. Meadowmoor Dairies be heeded that labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response, then the decision reached by the lower court becomes even more acceptable. 5. It is a fact of industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in the continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. Such being the case, there is no affront either to reason or to the law in the complaint for libel being dismissed. In placing reliance on the constitutional right of freedom of expression, 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. Bustos. 6. In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must ascertain whether or not the

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 38 of 62

LABOR LAW II
alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. It cannot be too often said that Bustos was promulgated as far back as March 8, 1918. A doctrine analogous in character.  EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP De Leon v. National Labor Union (1957) PICKETING; ABSENCE OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT MAKE PICKETING ILLEGAL.-Picketing peacefully carried out is not illegal even in the absence of employer-employee relationship, for peaceful picketing is a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.  CURTAILMENT Free Telephone Workers Union v. PLDT Co. (1982) Indeed, 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, 1965 order of the Court of Industrial Relations did not refer to peaceful picketing. In Mortera, supra, where the therein questioned order partly declared that ". . . picketing under any guise and form is hereby prohibited . . .," this Court ruled that the "order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means. In this case, the questioned (restraining) 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, agents or symphatizers "are hereby directed to call off the strike declared on July 17, 1965, and to lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent company's various offices and installations . . . . 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. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Cuizon Hotel v. Libron (1983) The above restraining order had to be issued because as contended in the petition, the order of the labor arbiter certainly cannot be declared final and executory upon the mere issuance thereof. That is manifestly in contravention of the law. Article 223 of the Labor Code is quite explicit on the matter, 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. Moreover, the wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is likewise clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a very recent decision decided this year, PAFLU v. CFI of Rizal: "It need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. As emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera v. Court of Industrial Relations, 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.' Reference was made in such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. Gomez.  RESTRICTIONS, INNOCENT THIRD PARTY RULE AND LIABILITIES Liwayway Publishing Co. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union (1981) At this juncture, it is well to cite and stress the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the right to picket. Thus, in the case of PAFLU vs. Cloribel, 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. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, 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, including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no

LABOR RELATIONS
industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. 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. 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'. They are entitled to seek protection of their rights from the courts and the courts may, accordingly, legally extend the same. Moreover, PAFLU's right to peacefully picket METBANK is not curtailed by the injunctions issued by respondent judge. The picket is merely regulated to protect the rights of third parties. And the reason for this is not farfetched. If the law fails to afford said protection, men will endeavor to safeguard their rights by their own might, take the law in their own hands, and commit acts which lead to breaches of the law. This should not be allowed to happen." MSF Tire and Rubber Inc. v. CA (1999) Thus, an "innocent bystander," who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof.  PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- PEACEFUL PICKETING Art. 264 (b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference. 9.04 ROLE OF PEACE OFFICERS DURING STRIKES AND PICKETING  ESCORTING Art. 264 (d) No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed person, 3. shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, 4. any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein: IV. Provided, That nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and legal order.  ARREST AND DETENTION OF LAW VIOLATORS Art. 266 Requirement for arrest and detention. Except on grounds of national security and public peace or in case of commission of a crime, 3. no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 39 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part IX LABOR INJUNCTION
10.01 DEFINITION AND NATURE
INJUNCTION: An injunction is available as a remedy for harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action rather than to compensate for an injury that has already been occurred, 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. A defendant who violates an injunction is subject to penalty for contempt. (Webster) Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC (1998) GENERALLY, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive rights or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation. 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. 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 injunction is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation. Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. The foregoing ancillary power may be exercised by the Labor Arbiters:  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,  BUT excluding labor disputes involving strikes or lockout. Why does injunction not apply to the facts of this case? In the present case, 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. Furthermore, 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. 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, or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. 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. 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, mediation and arbitration.  Thus, injunctions may be issued only in cases of extreme necessity based on legal grounds clearly established, after due consultations or hearing and when all efforts at conciliation are exhausted which factors, however, are clearly absent in the present case.

LABOR RELATIONS
10.02 GENERAL RULE –PROHIBITION
Art. 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, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this code. Art. 212 (l) ‘LABOR DISPUTE’ includes any controversy or matters:  concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or  representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment,  regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

ART. 218 Powers of the Commission. — 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, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party:  Provided, 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, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the commission, to the effect: (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, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; 2) 3) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow; That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief; That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and"

4)

(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, 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:

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 40 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Provided, however, a) the complainant "shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable;" b) there is "TESTIMONY under OATH, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice;" 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." d) No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except 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, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney's fee, 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 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, of which hearing complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. 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, further, 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. Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assoc. v. CIR (72) RATIONALE for prohibition: 1) It is well known that the scheme in Republic Act No. 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, unhampered as far as possible by judicial or administrative intervention. On this premise the lawmaking body has virtually prohibited the issuance of injunctive relief involving or growing out of labor disputes. 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. GENERAL RULE: there can be no injunction issued against any strike. EXCEPT in only one instance, that is, 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. 10 of Republic Act No. 875. Purpose of an injunction in an UNCERTIFIED case: As a corollary to this, an injunction in an uncertified case must be based on the strict requirements of Sec. 9(d) of Republic Act No. 875; the purpose of

LABOR RELATIONS
such an injunction is not to enjoin the strike itself, but only unlawful activities.

10.03 EXCEPTIONS – WHEN INJUCTION ALLOWED
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. 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, even assuming the contrary, the restraining order had been improperly issued. The Court finds that the respondent Commission had acted entirely in accord with applicable provisions of the Labor Code. 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, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 . . . EXCEPTIONS:  Article 264 lists down specific "prohibited activities" which may be forbidden or stopped by a restraining order or injunction.  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, and the procedure to be followed in issuing the same. 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,:  if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party . . . ." National Mines and Allied Workers v. 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." (In this case, NO LABOR DISPUTE exists). To sustain petitioners' theory will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences and lend judicial imprimatur to deprivation of property without due process of law. 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. To deny the victim of the wrongful levy, the recourse such as that availed of by the herein private respondents, under the pretext that no court of general jurisdiction can interfere with the writ of execution issued in a labor dispute, will be sanctioning a greater evil than that sought to be avoided by the Labor Code provision in question. Certainly, that could not have been the intendment of the law creating the NLRC. For well-settled is the rule that the power of a court to execute its judgment extends only over properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. Ravago v. Eastern Marine Ltd (2005) NO Labor Dispute exists in this case Facts: Petitioner is a seafarer who was hired on a contractual basis. Shortly after the termination of his latest contract, he was granted a vacation leave. During that time, he was hit by a stray bullet on his left leg which caused permanent injury. Eastern Marine refused to re-hire him. Petitioner filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found that Petitioner was not illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed. On appeal, CA issued a preliminary injunction. The petitioner asserts that the CA violated Article 254 of the Labor Code when it issued a temporary restraining order, and thereafter a writ of preliminary injunction, to derail the enforcement of the final and executory judgment of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the issue has become academic since the CA had already decided the case on its merits.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 41 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Held: The petitioner’s reliance on Article 25 of the Labor Code is misplaced. The law proscribes the issuance of injunctive relief only in those cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute.  The case before the NLRC neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute. It did not involve the fixing of terms or conditions of employment or representation of persons with respect thereto.  In fact, the petitioner’s complaint revolves around the issue of his alleged dismissal from service and his claim for backwages, damages and attorney’s fees. Moreover, Article 254 of the Labor Code specifically provides that the NLRC may grant injunctive relief under Article 218 thereof. Besides, the anti-injunction policy of the Labor Code, basically, is freedom at the workplace. It is more appropriate in the promotion of the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor and industrial disputes. 5)

LABOR RELATIONS
That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant's property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection."

10.04 ISSUING AGENCY
1. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER See Art. 218 (e) Above ROLE OF THE LABOR ARBITER ( Book V Rule XXI sec. 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 Commissions for its consideration and resolution.

EXCEPTION: When it can issue ex parte. However, a temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte under the following conditions: a. the complainant "shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice,  a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable;" b. there is "TESTIMONY under OATH, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice;" c. 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, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney's fee, 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;" and Bisig ng Manggagawa, etc. v. NLRC (1993) In the case at bar, the records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e), (4) and (5) of the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5, 1992.  Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with before a temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute "Verily, the factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no concurrence of the five (5) prerequisites mandated by Art. 218(e) of the Labor Code. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the questioned Order of preliminary injunction."

2. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND RULES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC (1991) GENERAL RULE: Cannot issue EX PARTE As a rule such restraining orders or injunctions do not issue ex parte, but only after compliance with the following requisites, to wit: a. a HEARING held "after due and PERSONAL NOTICE thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, 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. reception at the hearing of "testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath," as well as "testimony in opposition thereto, if offered . . .; "a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect: 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, prohibited or unlawful act,  except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; 2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant's property will follow; 3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be indicted upon defendants by the granting of relief; 4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and

To be sure, the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its issuance, however, should be characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of EXTREME NECESSITY, i.e., when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury to company properties and the company is, for the moment, bereft of an adequate remedy at law. This is as it ought to be, for imprudently issued temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged in a legal strike. 3. INJUNCTION AND MED-ARBITER Dinio v. Laguesma (1997) In the performance of his duties, the public respondent should not be shackled by stringent rules, if to do so would result in manifest injustice. Thus, he cannot, and correctly did not, turn a blind eye to the arbitrary and haphazard manner by which the MedArbiter issued the subject temporary restraining order, even though this issue was not explicitly raised by private respondents. There is no question that the issuance of a temporary restraining order is addressed to the sound discretion of the MedArbiter.  However, "this discretion should be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law." In the case of labor injunctions or temporary restraining orders, one may issue only in instances where the complainant or applicant will suffer grave or irreparable damages as provided in Sec. 5, Rule XVI, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code: Sec 5. Injunctions. — 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. On the other hand, the Office of the President, the Secretary of Labor, the Commission, the Labor

c.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 42 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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. While it is true that the Med-Arbiter has the authority to issue a writ of preliminary injunction, or a temporary restraining order against any act arising from any case pending before him, the exercise thereof shall always be subject to the test of reasonableness. The Med-Arbiter should ascertain that the act complained of, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case. When 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. Abalanson, 38 Phil. 585), or b) where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation (SSC vs. Bayona, et al., L-13555, May 30, 1962). DISINI: 1. Labor Injunction is not the same as the injunction under the rules of court. 2. General rule is stated in Art. 254 - The exceptions are in Art. 218 and Art. 264 - If you are filing injunction under Art. 218, the allegations of the acts committed are different from the allegations of acts committed under Art. 264. BUT the procedure to follow is the same, Art. 218. 3. Procedure for issuance of TRO is different from procedure of issuance of Injunction. - The similarity is in the testimony given. - But TRO is different because it is valid only for 20 days. 4. 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. ART. 218 Powers of the Commission. — The Commission shall have the power and authority: I. (e) ALLEGATIONS FOR ART. 218 TO APPLY 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, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: PROCEDURE for issuance of injunction (also the same for allegations under Art. 264) -Provided, 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. B. C. D. except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the commission, to the effect:

LABOR RELATIONS
(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, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; "(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will follow; "(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief; "(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and" (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. E. PERSONAL NOTICE To whom : "Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, - to all known persons against whom relief is sought, - 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: issuance of Temporary

III.  a)

PROCEDURE for Restraining Order

Provided, however, the complainant "shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, - a SUBSTANTIAL and IRREPARABLE INJURY to complainant's PROPERTY will be unavoidable;"

--

b)

there is "TESTIMONY under OATH, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice;" 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." No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except 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, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney's fee, 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;"

II.

c)

d)

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 43 of 62

LABOR LAW II
IV. A. The UNDERTAKING WITH ADEQUATE SECURITY (bond) The UNDERTAKING herein mentioned shall be understood to constitute an agreement into by the complainant and the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety upon a hearing to assess damages, of which hearing complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. 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, further, 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.

LABOR RELATIONS
 the prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained, or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained (actual knowledge required)  substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow  greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of the relief prayed for than will be inflicted upon the defendants by granting the relief  the complainant has no adequate remedy at law  the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to urnish adequate protection Effectivity: 20 days upon issuance of the order

V.

VI.

SUMMARY NOTES:

Definition: Labor Injunction – an order or a writ of injunction commands a person to do or not to do a particular act. It may be positive (mandatory) or negative (prohibitory) command. Note: This remedy will apply only if there exists a labor dispute Gen. Rule: An injunction CANNOT be issued in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes. (Art. 254) Exceptions: 1) Art. 218 (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, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. 2) Art. 263 (g) – the SOLE or 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. (IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 14) 3) Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. NLRC (1991) – may issue injunction to prevent any of the prohibited acts enumerated in Art. 264 Procedure for the issuance of injunction (Art. 218, e): 1) Observance of due process (Notice and Hearing) 2) Certain factors have been established by the Commission [enumerated below] (The following, if followed, allows for issuance of Injunction EX PARTE) 3) Testimony under oath to the effect that substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable 4) Complainant must first file an undertaking with adequate security sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the erroneous issuance of such order (amount determined by NLRC) Note: NLRC may delegate to LA the reception of evidence in injunction hearings which is accessible to the parties. The LA, then, submits its recommendation to the NLRC. Factors (Art. 218, e):

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 44 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Part X ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF ECONOMIC FORCE: CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AS MODES OF LABOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
1. CONCILIATION

LABOR RELATIONS
Board. The Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council shall advise the National Conciliation Board on matters pertaining to the promotion of voluntary arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute settlement.

2. ARBITRATION 11.04 IN GENERAL
Chung Fu Industries v. CA (1992) As early as the 1920's, this Court declared: "In the Philippines fortunately, the attitude of the courts toward arbitration agreements is slowly crystallizing into definite and workable form ... The rule now is that unless the agreement is such as absolutely to close the doors of the courts against the parties, which agreement would be void, 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.” In practice nowadays, absent an agreement of the parties to resolve their disputes via a particular mode, it is the regular courts that remain to resolve such matters. However, the parties may opt for recourse to third parties, exercising their basic freedom to "establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy." In such a case, resort to the arbitration process may be spelled out by them in a contract in anticipation of disputes that may arise between them. Or this may be stipulated in a submission agreement when they are actually confronted by a dispute. Whatever be the case, such recourse to an extrajudicial means of settlement is not intended to completely deprive the courts of jurisdiction. In fact, the early cases on arbitration carefully spelled out the prevailing doctrine at the time, thus: ". . . 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." But certainly, the stipulation to refer all future disputes to an arbitrator or to submit an ongoing dispute to one is valid. Being part of a contract between the parties, it is binding and enforceable in court in case one of them neglects, fails or refuses to arbitrate. Going a step further, in the event that they declare their intention to refer their differences to arbitration first before taking court action, this constitutes a condition precedent, such that where a suit has been instituted prematurely, the court shall suspend the same and the parties shall be directed forthwith to proceed to arbitration. A court action may likewise be proper where the arbitrator has not been selected by the parties. Under present law, may the parties who agree to submit their disputes to arbitration further provide that the arbitrators' award shall be final, unappealable and executory? Article 2044 of the Civil Code recognizes the validity of such stipulation, thus:  "Any stipulation that the arbitrator's award or decision shall be final is valid, without prejudice to Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040."  Similarly, 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." 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. Where the parties agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable as in the instant case, the pivotal inquiry is whether subject arbitration award is indeed beyond the ambit of the court's power of judicial review. It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators' award is not absolute and without exceptions.  Where the conditions described in Articles 2038, 2039 and

11.01 POLICY
Art. 211. Declaration of Policy. (e)To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes; 1987 Constitution. Art. XIII, Sec. 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, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

Kinds of Conciliation meetings: 1) As part of the collective bargaining process (Art. 250) 2) As preventive mediation cases (IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 1) 3) As part of disputes involving notices of strike or lockout (Art. 263, e)

11.02 CONCILIATION – AS PART OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS
Art. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. c. If the dispute is not settled, 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 Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call; d. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; and e. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. Art. 233 Privileged communication. Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.

11.03 CONCILIATION AGENCY – CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD
Executive Order 251, Sec. 4:

NATIONAL

Sec. 4. Section 22 of Executive Order No. 126 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 22. National Conciliation and Mediation Board. A National Conciliation and Mediation Board, herein referred to as the "Board", is hereby created and which shall absorb the conciliation mediation and voluntary arbitration functions of the Bureau of Labor of Relations in accordance with Section 29 (c) hereof…” xxx A Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council is hereby created and attached to the National Conciliation and Mediation

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 45 of 62

LABOR LAW II
2040 applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining, the arbitrators' award may be annulled or rescinded. Additionally, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law, there are grounds for vacating, modifying or rescinding an arbitrator's award.

LABOR RELATIONS
REQUISITES FOR A COMPULSARY ARBITRATION (Art. 263, g): - there exists a LABOR DISPUTE - causing or likely to cause a STRIKE OR LOCK-OUT - 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. EFFECT of Assumption or Certification of SOLE: If the parties are yet to go on strike or lockout: - 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, - 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 lock-out. Note: The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the compliance with this provision (Art. 263, g) as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. Art. 263 (g)  on strikes/lockouts in medical institutions: 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. 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. Sec. 22 RA 8791 Banking institutions are industries indispensable to the national interest. PAL v. NLRC (1989) Proceedings on appeal before the NLRC en banc cannot be considered as part of the arbitration proceeding. In its broad sense, arbitration is the reference of a dispute to an impartial third 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. GTE Directories Corp. v. GTE Directories Corp. Employees Union (1991) 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

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. It is to be borne in mind, however, 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. It should be stressed too, that voluntary arbitrators, by the nature of their functions, act in a quasi-judicial capacity. It stands to reason, therefore, that their decisions should not be beyond the scope of the power of judicial review of this Court. LM Power Engineering Corp. v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups (2003) In any event, 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, because the awards are still judicially reviewable under certain conditions. Being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of settling disputes, arbitration -- along with mediation, conciliation and negotiation -- is encouraged by the Supreme Court. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets, arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of the commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the “wave of the future” in international civil and commercial disputes. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward. Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Sec 1 of Article II of the old Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration indeed required the submission of a request for arbitration, as follows. However, 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” . Clearly, there is no more need to file a request with the CIAC in order to vest it 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.

11.05 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
1. DEFINITION AND NATURE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF DISPUTE SUBJECT TO

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.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 46 of 62

LABOR LAW II
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. 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) 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 nonstrikers 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. Gen. Rule: Voluntary Arbitration (Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution; Art. 211) Exception: Assumption of jurisdiction by Sec. of Labor (Art. 263, g) 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 FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

LABOR RELATIONS
Manila Cordage Company v. CIR (1971) The purpose of a presidential certification is nothing more than to bring about soonest, thru arbitration by the industrial court, 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, so that the damage such employer-worker dispute might cause upon the national interest may be minimized as much as possible, 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. This is the foundation of that court's jurisdiction in what may be termed as a certification case. Naturally, 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, before the court is able to use its good offices, 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, except as it may become necessary to determine whether or not the agreement forged by the parties is not contrary to law, morals or public policy. 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." The very purpose of a compulsory arbitration, is to call a halt to a pending strike by requiring that the status quo prior to its declaration be preserved. Phil. School of Business Administration v. Noriel(1988) The Solicitor General was correct when he stated that by assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute, 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. As contended by the SolGen, "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. He has not rendered any decision; he has not favored one party over the other.

LABOR DISPUTE of NATIONAL INTEREST (determined by Sec. of Labor or President)  Sec. of Labor may assume jurisdiction over the case and resolve it  Sec. of Labor may certify the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration 3. PROCESS INITIATION – CERTIFICATION OF DISPUTE 1) Initiating Party a) Secretary DOLE PLDT v. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (2005) When the Secretary exercises the powers granted by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, he is, indeed, granted great breadth of discretion. However, the application of this power is not without limitation, lest the Secretary would be above the law. As Article 263(g) is clear and unequivocal in stating that 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

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 47 of 62

LABOR LAW II
the strike or lockout, then the unmistakable mandate must be followed by the Secretary. b) President

LABOR RELATIONS
President under the law, and this Court will not interfere in, much less curtail, the exercise of that prerogative. 4. ARBITRATION AGENCIES St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres (1992) A return to work order is immediately executory notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. 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 issue on whether respondent SECRETARY has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies, causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, was already settled in International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Secretary of Labor and Employment. Therein, We ruled that: ". . . [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, and decide the same accordingly. Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdictional over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction." The submission of an incidental issue of a labor dispute, in assumption and/or certification cases, 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. 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, as the case may be, to enforce the same under pain or loss of employment status or entitlement to full employment benefits from the locking-out employer or backwages, damages and/or other positive and/or affirmative reliefs, even to criminal prosecution against the liable parties . . ." It must be strictly complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its validity (Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle' Philippines, Inc., supra)  After all, the assumption and/or certification order is issued in the exercise of respondent SECRETARY's compulsive power of arbitration and, until set aside, must therefore be immediately complied with. The rationale for this rule is explained in University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC,  "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, 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." The respective liabilities of striking union officers and members who failed to immediately comply with the return-towork order is outlined in Art. 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. Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a return-to-work order may, consequently, "be declared to have lost his employment status." 5. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION AND VIOLATION OF ORDER Effect of Assumption/Certification Order pursuant to Art. 263 (g): 1) Strike/Lockout automatically enjoined

Union of Filipro Employees v. 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. 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, 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. Corollary, the NLRC was thereby charged with the task of implementing the certification order for compulsory arbitration.  As the implementing body, its authority did not include the power to amend the Secretary's order. When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by the Secretary of Labor, 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. Int’l Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Secretary of DOLE (1992) In the present case, the Secretary was explicitly granted by Art. 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, and decide the same accordingly. Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to - all questions and controversies arising therefrom, - including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, Art. 217 is not without, but contemplates, exceptions thereto. This is evident from the opening proviso therein reading "(e)xcept as otherwise provided under this Code . . ." Plainly, Article 263(g) was meant to make both the Secretary (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions. Otherwise, the Secretary would not be able to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute. 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. c) Office of the President – 263 (g)

Feati University v. Feati University Faculty Club (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. it may issue an order forbidding employees to strike or the employer to lockout its employees, or, failing in this, b. it may issue an order fixing the terms and conditions of employment. It has no other alternative. It can throw the case out in the assumption that the certification was erroneous. ". . . The fact, however, 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. What matters is that by virtue of the certification made by the President the case was placed under the jurisdiction of said court." To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 48 of 62

LABOR LAW II
2) Striking/Locked Out employees shall immediately return to work 3) Employer shall resume operations and readmit all workers Effect of Non-Compliance with Assumption/Certification Order: 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. (Art. 263, g) Sarmiento v. Tuico (1988) The law itself provides that "such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. 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." It must be stressed that while one purpose of the return-towork order is to protect the workers who might otherwise be locked out by the employer for threatening or waging the strike, 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 is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will. 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, as this Court held in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills. The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties with the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike. One other point that must be underscored is that the returnto-work order is issued pending the determination of the legality or illegality of the strike. 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, for the purpose precisely is to maintain the status quo while the determination is being made. Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. CA (2000) It is clear from Art. 263 that the moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. The rationale of this prohibition is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by the competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike. Manila Hotel Employees Assn. v. Manila Hotel Corp. (2007) Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. 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. This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company, to justify their action. Disini: RULES REGARDING RETURN TO WORK ORDER 1) The moment there is Presidential (or by Secretary of Labor) assumption of jurisdiction, whether a return to work order is issued

LABOR RELATIONS
or not, the return to work order is an integral part of the assumption of jurisidiction. (Sarmiento v. Tuico) 2) A return to work order does not violate the Involuntary Servitude clause (Sarmiento v. Tuico) 3) A return-to-work order must be complied with as a matter of duty not just a right. 4) A return-to-work order may be appealed but even pending appeal the return-to-work order must still be followed. 5) According to the Bagiou Colleges case: If there is doubt, take note of the duty to comply. One merely has to file a motion for clarification. TAKE NOTE: The extent of authority of the compulsory arbitration are those that may be necessary to settle the dispute. 6. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. 263 Strikes, picketing and lockouts. i. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute, as the case may be. The decision of the President, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties. Art. 277 i. To ensure speedy labor justice, the periods provided in this Code within which decisions or resolutions of labor relations cases or matters should be rendered shall be mandatory. For this purpose, 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, or the Labor Arbiter, or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or MedArbiter, or the Regional Director. Upon expiration of the corresponding period, 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, the Executive Labor Arbiter, or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or Med-Arbiter, or the Regional Director, as the case may be, and a copy thereof served upon the parties. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the aforesaid officials shall, without prejudice to any liability which may have been incurred as a consequence thereof, see to it that the case or matter shall be decided or resolved without any further delay. Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. v. Sec. of Labor (2006) The company is therefore right in dismissing the subject Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary. However, the members of the Union should not be as severely punished. Dismissal is a harsh penalty as surely they were only following orders from their officers. Besides, there is no evidence that they engaged or participated in the commission of illegal activities during the said strike. They should thus be reinstated to their former positions, but without backwages. Their action which resulted in prejudice to the Company cannot however go unpunished. For the injury that they have collectively inflicted on the company, they should be disciplined. A one month suspension is a reasonable disciplinary measure which should be deemed served during the time they out of their jobs (sic). Telefunken Semi-Conductor Employees Union v. CA (2000) SOLE OFFICE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF JURISDICTION INCLUDING THE COMMISSION OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION In Meralco v. The Honorable Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing. 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. This

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 49 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Court is entitled to, 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, i.e., in the appreciation of and the conclusions the Secretary drew from the evidence presented.” However, 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. 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.  However, for this Court to properly exercise the power of judicial review over a decision of an administrative agency, such as the DOLE, it must first be shown that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions has indeed acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the absence of any showing of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, judicial review may not be had over an administrative agency’s decision. 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.

LABOR RELATIONS
exceptional circumstances do not obtain in the instant cases to warrant the grant of financial assistance to the striking workers. To our mind, the strikers’ open and willful defiance of the assumption order dated September 16, 1995 constitute serious misconduct as well as reflective of their moral character, hence, granting financial assistance to them is not and cannot be justified

o

7. OPTION – SUBMIT CASE VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AFTER CERTIFICATION Art. 263 Strikes, picketing and lockouts. (h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process, the parties may opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. 8. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND LABOR RIGHTS Philtread Workers Union v. 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, Article XIII of the Constitution. The assailed order of the Secretary of Labor, which enjoins the strike, is an utter interference of the workers’ right to self-organization, to manage their own affairs, activities and programs, and therefore is illegal. Held: The petition is devoid of merit. On the issue of the constitutionality of Article 263 (g), the same had already been resolved in Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc., to wit:  “In the case at bar, no law has ever been passed by Congress expressly repealing Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. 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. Moreover, no court has ever declared that the said articles are inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.  On the contrary, 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.A. 6715, otherwise known as Herrera law, Section 27 of which amended paragraphs (g) and (l) of Article 263 of the Labor Code.  At any rate, 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, which has been defined as the power inherent in a government to enact laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of society (People vs. Vera Reyes, 67 Phil. 190). Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workers’ constitutional right to strike. The foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right to strike but merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such right, national interests will be affected.  The rights granted by the Constitution are not absolute.  They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily. The interests of both the employers and employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue preference. The Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. Thus, his certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to impede the workers’ right to strike but to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute.

The grant of plenary powers to the Secretary of Labor under Art. 263(g) makes it incumbent for him to bring about soonest, 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, if not totally averted, 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. On Backwages Since, as correctly found by the Secretary of Labor, the strikers were not illegally dismissed, the COMPANY is under no obligation to pay backwages to them. It is simply inconsistent, nay, absurd, to award backwages when there is no finding of illegal dismissal (Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation, 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.  In fact, the Secretary of Labor observed that while “it was obligatory on the part of both parties to restore, in the meantime, the status quo obtaining in the workplace”, the same “was not possible considering the strikers had defied the return-to-work Order of this Office”. With such blatant disregard by the strikers of official edicts ordering their “temporary reinstatement”, there is no basis to award them backwages corresponding to said time frames. Otherwise, they will recover something they have not or could not have earned by their willful defiance of the return-to-work order, a patently incongruous and unjust situation (Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 154 SCRA 166). On Award of Financial Assistance or Separation pay The same view holds with respect to the award of financial assistance or separation pay. The assumption for granting financial assistance or separation pay, which is, that there is an illegally dismissed employee and that illegally dismissed employee would otherwise have been entitled to reinstatement, is not present in the case at bench.  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. 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, the attendant facts show that such

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 50 of 62

LABOR LAW II
11.05 VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
1. DEFINED Manila Central Line Corp. v. 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, petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to render the decision in question. 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. This is what the parties did in this case. 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. Petitioner joined the petition and the case was submitted for decision.  Although the union’s petition was for “compulsory arbitration,” the subsequent agreement of petitioner to submit the matter for arbitration in effect made the arbitration a voluntary one. Moreover, petitioner must be deemed to be estopped from questioning the authority of Labor Arbiter, to act as voluntary arbitrator and render a decision in this case. Petitioner agreed together with the union, to refer their dispute for arbitration to him. It was only after the decision was rendered that petitioner raised the question of lack of jurisdiction. 2. BASIS FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION AND RATIONALE 1987 Constitution. Art. XIII, Sec. 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, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. 3. PROCESS ENCOURAGEMENT/PROMOTION Establishing Machinery Dispute Settlement – Collective Bargaining Agreement and Time Frame Art. 260 Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration.— The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery which are not settled within 7 month calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. xxx Executive Order 251, Sec. 4: Sec. 4. Section 22 of Executive Order No. 126 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 22. National Conciliation and Mediation Board. A National Conciliation and Mediation Board, herein referred to as the "Board", is hereby created and which shall absorb the conciliation mediation and voluntary arbitration functions of the Bureau of Labor of Relations in accordance with Section 29 (c) hereof…” xxx A Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council is hereby created and attached to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council shall advise the National Conciliation Board on matters pertaining to the promotion of voluntary arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute settlement. 4. ARBITRABLE ISSUES

LABOR RELATIONS

Art. 261 Disputes covered in Voluntary Arbitration: Gen. Rule (Art. 261): - Those unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA; - Also, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies - Gross violations of CBA provision Excpeption (Art. 262): - If parties agree, VA may hear and decide all other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlock  For purposes of this article, gross violations of CBA shall mean flagrant and/ or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

Rights Disputes v. Interest Disputes Rights disputes: Claim for violation of a specific right (Arising from a contract, ex: CBA or company policies). Voluntary Arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over this matters. Interest Disputes: These ponders on the questions “what should be included in the CBA.” Strictly speaking, the parties may choose a voluntary arbitrator to decide on terms and conditions of employment, but that is impracticable because it will be a value judgment of the arbitrator and not the parties. 5. ARBITRATOR SELECTION How Voluntary Arbitrator is selected (Art. 260): 1) As stated in CBA (or selection procedure of a VA), preferably from a list of qualified VA’s accredited by NCMB 2) If parties fail to select, the Board (NCMB) shall select VA pursuant to selection procedure as stated in CBA Art. 260 x x x. For this purpose, parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,  or include in the agreement the procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the Board.  In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, 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. Manila Central Line Free Workers Union v. Manila Central Line Corp. (1998) Indeed, the Labor Code formerly provided that if the parties in collective bargaining fail to reach an agreement, the Bureau of Labor Relations should call them to conciliation meetings and, if its efforts were not successful, certify the dispute to a labor arbiter for compulsory arbitrarion. But this was changed by R.A.No. 6715 which took effect on March 21, 1989. Art 250(e) of the Labor Code now provides that if effects of conciliation fail, the Board shall “encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.” This is what the parties did in this case. 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. Petitioner joined the petition and the case was submitted for decision. Although the union’s petition was for

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 51 of 62

LABOR LAW II
“compulsory arbitration,” the subsequent agreement of petitioner to submit the matter for arbitration in effect made the arbitration a voluntary one. The essence of voluntary arbitration, after all is that it is by agreement of the parties, rather than compulsion of law, that a matter is submitted for arbitration. It does not matter that the person chosen as arbitrator is a labor arbiter who, under Art 217 of the Labor Code, is charged with the compulsory arbitration of certain labor cases. 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.

LABOR RELATIONS
any of these categories - should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific provision of law.

Ludo and Luym Corp v. Saornido (2003) Arguments: Petitioner contends that the appellate court gravely erred when it upheld the award of benefits which were beyond the terms of submission agreement. Petitioner asserts that the arbitrator must confine its adjudication to those issues submitted by the parties for arbitration, which in this case is the sole issue of the date of regularization of the workers. Hence, the award of benefits by JURISDICTION the arbitrator was done in excess of jurisdiction. On the matter of the benefits, respondents argue that the Disputes covered in Voluntary Arbitration: arbitrator is empowered to award the assailed benefits because Gen. Rule (Art. 261): notwithstanding the sole issue of the date of regularization, - Those unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of companion issues on reliefs and remedies are deemed standard the CBA; - Also, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies incorporated. Otherwise, the whole arbitration process would be - Gross violations of CBA provision rendered purely academic and the law creating it inutile. Excpeption (Art. 262): - If parties agree, VA may hear and decide all other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlock Resolution: Gross Violations of CBA, defined (Art. 261):  flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor Arbiters is clearly defined and specifically delineated in the Labor Code (Art. 217 for LA, Art. 261-262 for VA). While a voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s personnel, said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws. Generally, the arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement.  Nevertheless, 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.  In one case, 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, in a proper case, to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. The Arbitrator, as already indicated, 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, in the affirmative case, the amount thereof. By the same token, the issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered issue. While the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or regularization, 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. It bears stressing that the underlying reason why this case arose is to settle, once and for all, the ultimate question of whether respondent employees are entitled to higher benefits. 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. PROCEDURE Art. 262-A Procedures The voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have the power to hold hearings, receive evidences and take whatever action is necessary to resolve the issue or issues subject of dispute, including efforts to effect a voluntary settlement between parties. All parties to the dispute shall be entitled to attend the arbitration proceedings. 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. Hearing may be adjourned for a cause or upon agreement by the parties. Unless the parties agreed otherwise, 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.

Viviero v. Court of appeals (2000) Termination disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter: 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. They point out that when petitioner sought the assistance of his Union to avail of the grievance machinery, he in effect submitted himself to the procedure set forth in the CBA regarding submission of unresolved grievances to a Voluntary Arbitrator. Held: The argument is untenable. The case is primarily a termination dispute.  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 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.  Thus, the question to be resolved necessarily springs from the primary issue of whether there was a valid termination; without this, then there would be no reason to invoke the need to interpret and implement the CBA provisions properly. A possible exception: In San Miguel Corp. v. 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."  Ergo, 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. 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, 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.  Absent such express stipulation, the phrase "all disputes" should be construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating to contractinterpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Illegal termination disputes - not falling within

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 52 of 62

LABOR LAW II
The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based. 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. Upon motion of any interested party, the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides, in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason, 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, order, or award. NATURE OF OFFICE AND FUNCTION United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union v. Kimberly-Clark Phils. Inc. (2006) As a general proposition, an arbitrator is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement. He does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice: his award is legitimate only in so far as it draws its essence from the CBA. The VA is not merely to rely on the cold and cryptic words on the face of the CBA but is mandated to discover the intention of the parties. Nippon Paint Employees Union v. CA (2004) In the case of Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, this Court ruled that a voluntary arbitrator partakes of the nature of a “quasi-judicial instrumentality” and is within the ambit of Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended. As such, the decisions of a voluntary arbitrator fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. 6. AWARDS AND ORDERS Art. 262-A xxx The award or decision shall contain the facts and the law on which it is based. 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. Upon motion of any interested party,  the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators or the Labor Arbiter in the region where the movant resides, in case of the absence or incapacity of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators for any reason,  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, order, or award. Davao Integrated v. Abarquez (1993) 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. Article 261 of the Labor Code is clear.  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."  We, therefore, find that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent in issuing the award (decision). Moreover, his interpretation of Sections 1 and 3, Article VIII of the 1989 CBA cannot be faulted with and is absolutely correct. Citibank Employees Union v. MOLE (1980) The award of the arbitrator in this case is not to be equated with a judicial decision. In effect, when in relation to a controversy as to working conditions, which necessarily include the amount of wages, allowances, bonuses, overtime pay, holiday pay, etc., the parties

LABOR RELATIONS
submit their differences to arbitration, 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.  Stated differently, the arbitrator's award when stipulated by the parties to be conclusive becomes part and parcel of the CBA. Viewed in this sense, which We are fully convinced is most consistent with the principles of collective bargaining, 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, modify, reform, much less abrogate, the new terms, so to speak, of the collective bargaining inserted by virtue of the award of the arbitrator. To do otherwise would violate the prescription of the Constitution against impairment of the obligation of contracts. We hold that regardless of any law anterior or posterior to the Arbitrator's award, the collective bargaining agreement in this case has been correspondingly amended in a manner that is unalterable, immovable and immutable like the rock of Gibraltar, during the lifetime of the said collective bargaining agreement. See: Ludo and Luym v. Saornido, supra 7. FINALITY AND EXECUTION OF AWARDS  Art. 262-A: Award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory after 10 days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Imperial Textile Miles, etc. Calica (1992) When the parties submitted their grievance to arbitration, they expressly agreed that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator would be final, executory and unappealable.  In fact, even without this stipulation, 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. In the case of The Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., this Court held that the Voluntary Arbitrator lost jurisdiction over the case submitted to him the moment he rendered his decision. Therefore, he could no longer entertain a motion for reconsideration of the decision for its reversal or modification. Thus:  By modifying the original award, respondent arbitrator exceeded his authority as such, a fact he was well aware of, 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. Coca-Cola v. Coca-Cola (2005) It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed by law. In the more recent case of DBP v. NLRC, the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result thereby, since litigations must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would “be even more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.” Rule VII, Section 1 of the “Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings” provides the key. Therein, what constitutes the voluntary arbitrator’s decision (and, by extension, that of the Panel of voluntary arbitrators) is defined with precision, to wit:

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 53 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Section 1. Decision Award. -- The final arbitral disposition of issue/s submitted to voluntary arbitration is the Decision. The disposition may take the form of a dismissal of a claim or grant of specific remedy, either by way of prohibition of particular acts or specific performance of particular acts. In the latter case the decision is called an Award. In herein case, the Decision of the Panel was in the form of a dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. Naturally, this dismissal was contained in the main decision and not in the dissenting opinion. Thus, under Section 6, Rule VII of the same guidelines implementing Article 262-A of the Labor Code, this Decision, as a matter of course, would become final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of copies of the decision by the parties even without receipt of the dissenting opinion unless, in the meantime, a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is filed within the same 10-day period. 8. APPEAL Luzon Development Bank v. Assoc of Luzon Dev’t Employees (1995) 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. 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,"  while the "decision, 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, awards, or orders."  Hence, while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator. Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasijudicial agency, board or commission, still both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality." A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein. This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 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. 9 of B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition. Unicraft Industries Int’l v. CA (2001) Both parties acknowledge that the proceedings before the Voluntary Arbitrator have not been completed.  Despite this, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed resolution ordering the immediate execution of the award of separation pay and attorney’s fees.  Prior to that, Voluntary Arbitrator Calipay filed a comment contending that he had lost jurisdiction over the case after he rendered judgment. While under the law decisions of voluntary arbitrators are accorded finality, the same may still be subject to review, such as here where there was a violation of petitioners’ right to due process and to be heard.

LABOR RELATIONS
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. At this juncture, 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, viz:  While the intendment of our laws is to favor the employee, it in no way implies that the employer is not entitled to due process. 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. Such an action can only result in public mistrust of our entire legal system, and we strongly remind the NLRC of their duty to uphold an inspire confidence in the same.

The Court of Appeals, thus, 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, notwithstanding that the same was null and void for violation of petitioner’s right to due process of law. 9. COSTS Art. 262-B. Cost of Voluntary Arbitration and Voluntary Arbitrators fee.— 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. The fixing of the fee of the Voluntary Arbitrators, whether shouldered wholly by the parties or subsidized by the special voluntary arbitration fund, shall take into account the following factors: a. Nature of the case b. Time consumed in hearing the case c. Professional Standing of the Voluntary Arbitrator d. Capacity to Pay of the parties.

SUMMARY NOTES
Definition: CONCILIATION – process whereby the parties come together to settle labor disputes. ARBITRATION – process whereby an impartial third party is either chosen by the parties themselves (voluntary) or chosen for them (compulsory) to aid in the settlement of the labor dispute. Agencies involved: 1) Conciliation Proceedings – NCMB (Art. 212, c) 2) Arbitration Proceedings – if compulsory, by Labor Arbiter (initiated by Sec. of Labor) – if voluntary, by a Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) or a panel of VA’s Kinds of Conciliation meetings: 1) As part of the collective bargaining process (Art. 250) 2) As preventive mediation cases (IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 1) 3) As part of disputes involving notices of strike or lockout (Art. 263, e) Kinds of Arbitration Proceedings: 1) Compulsary (Art. 263, g) – 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 (PAL v. NLRC, 1989) 2) Voluntary (Art. 260) – contractual proceedings where the parties to a labor dispute select a judge (arbitrator) of their own choice and by consent, submit their controversy to him for determination.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 54 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Compulsary Arbitration: 1) Applies to labor disputes in industries indispensable to national interest 2) Initiated by either the Secretary of Labor / the President of the Philippines 3) Under the jurisdiction of Secretary of Labor / NLRC (only if certified by the Secretary of Labor to NLRC) REQUISITES FOR A COMPULSARY ARBITRATION (Art. 263, g): - there exists a LABOR DISPUTE - causing or likely to cause a STRIKE/LOCK-OUT - in an INDUSTRY INDISPENDSABLE TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST 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. When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by the Secretary of Labor, 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. (Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, 1990) Effect of Assumption/Certification Order pursuant to Art. 263 (g): 1) Strike/Lockout automatically enjoined 2) Striking/Locked Out employees shall immediately return to work 3) Employer shall resume operations and readmit all workers Effect of Non-Compliance with Assumption/Certification Order: …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. (Art. 263, g) Disputes covered in Voluntary Arbitration: Gen. Rule (Art. 261): - Those unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA; - Also, those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies - Gross violations of CBA provision Excpeption (Art. 262): - If parties agree, VA may hear and decide all other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlock Gross Violations of CBA, defined (Art. 261):  flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA Grievance Machinery/Voluntary Arbitration Procedure: 1) Regarding interpretation or implementation of the CBA, the dispute is referred to the Grievance Machinery Note: Procedure is pre-determined by the parties 2) If unresolved after 7 days, the dispute is put up for Voluntary Arbitration. Note: Must be agreed upon by the parties first How Voluntary Arbitrator is selected (Art. 260): 1) As stated in CBA (or selection procedure of a VA), preferably from a list of qualified VA’s accredited by NCMB 2) If parties fail to select, the Board (NCMB) shall select VA pursuant to selection procedure as stated in CBA As per Art. 262-A: Gen. Rule: VA must render an award or decision on a labor dispute within 20 days from submission to arbitration Exception: Parties agree otherwise

LABOR RELATIONS

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 55 of 62

LABOR LAW II

LABOR RELATIONS
a charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate. The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization only upon the submission of the following documents in addition to its charter certificate: (a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal office of the chapter; and (b) The chapter's constitution and bylaws: Provided, That where the chapter's constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or the national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly. The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by its president.

ARTICLE 234 (LABOR CODE) vis-à-vis RA 9481 Article 234 LC Requirements of registration.
Any applicant labor organization, 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 the certificate of registration based on the following requirements. a. b. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee; The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings; The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and Four (4) copies of the constitution and bylaws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981)

As amended by RA 9481 (May 2007) Requirements of Registration.
A federation, national union or industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following requirements: a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee; b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings; (c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate; If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and Four copies of the constitution and bylaws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who participated in it.

c.

Article 238
Cancellation of registration; appeal.
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, shall be cancelled by the Bureau if it has reason to believe, after due hearing, that the said labor organization no longer meets one or more of the requirements herein prescribed. [The Bureau upon approval of this Code shall immediately institute cancellation proceedings and take such other steps as may be necessary to restructure all existing registered labor organizations in accordance with the objective envisioned above.] (Repealed by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)

As amended
Cancellation of Registration.
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, may be cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified in Article 239 hereof.

(d)

d.

(e)

e.

NEW PROVISION ART. 234-A. Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter. — A duly registered federation or national union may directly create a local chapter by issuing

NEW PROVISION ART. 238-A. Effect of a Petition for Cancellation of Registration. — A petition for cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings for certification

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 56 of 62

LABOR LAW II
election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for certification election. In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union to seek just and equitable remedies in the appropriate courts. bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law; g. Asking for or accepting attorney’s fees or negotiation fees from employers; Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual written authorizations of the members; Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year or whenever required by the Bureau; and Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237 and 238.

LABOR RELATIONS

Article 239
Grounds for cancellation of union registration.
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: a. Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of members who took part in the ratification; Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and bylaws or amendments thereto; Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, 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 thirty (30) days from election; Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty (30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself; Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law; Entering into collective

As amended
Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration.
The following may constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration: (a)

h.

Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the i. adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took j. part in the ratification;

b.

(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters; (c)Voluntary dissolution by the members.

c.

1) NEW PROVISION ART. 239-A. Voluntary Cancellation of Registration. — The registration of a legitimate labor organization may be cancelled by the organization itself: Provided, That at least two-thirds, of its general membership votes, in a meeting duly called for that purpose to dissolve the organization: Provided, further, That an application to cancel registration is thereafter submitted by the board of the organization, attested to by the president thereof.

NEW PROVISION ART. 242-A. Reportorial Requirements. — The following are documents required to be submitted to the Bureau by the legitimate labor organization concerned: (a) Its constitution and bylaws, or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification of the constitution and bylaws within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; Its list of officers, minutes of the election of officers, and list of voters within thirty (30)

d.

e.

(b)

f.

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 57 of 62

LABOR LAW II
(c) days from election; Its annual financial report within thirty (30) days after the close of every fiscal year; and Its list of members at least once a year or whenever required by the Bureau. consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. 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. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, that the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

LABOR RELATIONS
before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixty (60)-day period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the MedArbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. 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. When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes: Provided, That the total number of votes for all contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. In cases where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members. At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed.

(d)

Failure to comply with the above requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

Article 245
Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of
Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rankand-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own. (As amended by Section 18, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

As amended
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. Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. The rank and file union and the supervisors' union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union. NEW PROVISION ART. 245-A. Effect of Inclusion as Members of Employees Outside the Bargaining Unit. — The inclusion as union members of employees outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed removed from the list of membership of said union.

Article 257
Petitions in unorganized establishments.
In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. (As amended by Section 24, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

As Amended
Petitions in Unorganized Establishments.
In any establishment where there is no certified bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by any legitimate labor organization, including a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its local/chapter participating in the certification election or a local/chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation. In cases where the petition was filed by a national union or federation, it shall not be required to disclose the names of the local chapter's officers and members.

Article 256 LC
Representation issue in organized establishments.
In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department of Labor and Employment within the sixtyday period before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written

As amended
Representation Issue in Organized Establishments.
In organized establishments, when a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed by any legitimate labor organization including a national union or federation which has already issued a charter certificate to its local chapter participating in the certification election or a local chapter which has been issued a charter certificate by the national union or federation

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 58 of 62

LABOR LAW II
The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions, and duties through its divisions. Of the five (5) divisions, the first, second and third divisions shall handle cases coming from the National Capital Region and the parts of Luzon; and the fourth and fifth divisions, cases from the Visayas and Mindanao, respectively; Provided that the Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided by any other division whose docket allows the additional workload and such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional expense. The divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdictions. [As amended by Republic Act No. 7700]. The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of judgment or resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may be necessary. The conclusions of a division on any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It shall be mandatory for the division to meet for purposes of the consultation ordained herein. A certification to this effect signed by the Presiding Commissioner of the division shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. The Chairman shall be the Presiding Commissioner of the first division and the four (4) other members from the public sector shall be the Presiding Commissioners of the second, third, fourth and fifth divisions, respectively. In case of the effective absence or incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of the second division shall be the Acting Chairman. The Chairman, aided by the

LABOR RELATIONS
eight (8) divisions, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall handle cases coming from the National Capital Region and other parts of Luzon, and the seventh and eighth divisions, cases from Visayas and Mindanao, respectively: Provided, That the Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided by any other division whose docket allows the additional workload and such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional expense. The divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdiction. The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of judgment or resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may be necessary. The conclusions of a division on any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It shall be mandatory for the division to meet for purposes of the consultation ordained herein. A certification to this effect signed by the Presiding Commissioner of the division shall be issued, and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. The Chairman shall be the Presiding Commissioner of the first division, and the seven (7) other members from the public sector shall be the Presiding Commissioners of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth divisions, respectively. In case of the effective absence or incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of the second division shall be the Acting Chairman. The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the Commission, shall have exclusive administrative supervision over the Commission and its regional

NEW PROVISION ART. 258-A. Employer as Bystander. — In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation in such proceedings shall be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and (2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the MedArbiter act favorably on the petition

Article 213
National Labor Commission. Relations

As amended
National Labor Commission. Relations

There shall be a National Labor Relations Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for program and policy coordination only, composed of a Chairman and fourteen (14) Members. Five (5) members each shall be chosen from among the nominees of the workers and employers organizations, respectively. The Chairman and the four (4) remaining members shall come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen from among the recommendees of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Upon assumption into office, the members nominated by the workers and employers organizations shall divest themselves of any affiliation with or interest in the federation or association to which they belong. The Commission may sit en banc or in five (5) divisions, each composed of three (3) members. Subject to the penultimate sentence of this paragraph, the Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches, and formulating policies affecting its administration and operations.

There shall be a National Labor Relations Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and Employment solely for program and policy coordination, composed of a Chairman and twenty-three (23) members. Eight (8) members each shall be chosen only from among the nominees of the workers and employers organizations, respectively. The Chairman and the seven (7) remaining members shall come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen preferably from among the incumbent labor arbiters. Upon assumption into office, the members nominated by the workers and employers organizations shall divest themselves of any affiliation with or interest in the federation or association to which they belong. The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8) divisions, each composed of three (3) members. The Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and formulating policies affecting its administration and operations. The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions and duties through its divisions. Of the

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 59 of 62

LABOR LAW II
Executive Clerk of the Commission, shall have administrative supervision over the Commission and its regional branches and all its personnel, including the Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters. The Commission, when sitting en banc shall be assisted by the same Executive Clerk and, when acting thru its Divisions, by said Executive Clerks for the second, third, fourth and fifth Divisions, respectively, in the performance of such similar or equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals. (As amended by Section 5, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) branches and all its personnel, including the Labor Arbiters. The Commission, when sitting en banc, shall be assisted by the same Executive Clerk, and, when acting thru its Divisions, by said Executive Clerk for its first division and seven (7) other Deputy Executive Clerks for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Divisions, respectively, in the performance of such similar or equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals. The Commission and its eight (8) divisions shall be assisted by the Commission Attorneys in its appellate and adjudicatory functions whose term shall be coterminous with the Commissioners with whom they are assigned. The Commission Attorneys shall be members of the Philippine Bar with at least one (1) year experience or exposure in the field of labormanagement relations. They shall receive annual salaries and shall be entitled to the same allowances and benefits as those falling under Salary Grade twenty-six (SG 26). There shall be as many Commission Attorneys as may be necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the Commission but in no case more than three (3) assigned to the Office of the Chairman and each Commissioner. No Labor Arbiter shall be assigned to perform the functions of the Commission Attorney nor detailed to the office of any Commissioner." branch shall be headed by an Executive Labor Arbiter. (As amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

LABOR RELATIONS

Article 215
Appointment Qualifications. and

As Amended
Appointment Qualifications. and

Article 214
Headquarters, Branches and Provincial Extension Units. The Commission and its First, Second and Third divisions shall have their main offices in Metropolitan Manila, and the Fourth and Fifth divisions in the Cities of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, respectively. The Commission shall establish as many regional branches as there are regional offices of the Department of Labor and Employment, sub-regional branches or provincial extension units. There shall be as many Labor Arbiters as may be necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the Commission. Each regional

As Amended
Headquarters, Branches and Provincial Extension Units. The Commission and its first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall have their main offices in Metropolitan Manila, and the seventh and eighth divisions in the cities of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, respectively. The Commission shall establish as many regional branches as there are regional offices of the Department of Labor and Employment, subregional branches or provincial extension units. There shall be as many Labor Arbiters as may be necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the Commission.

The Chairman and other Commissioners shall be members of the Philippine Bar and must have engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15) years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations, and shall preferably be residents of the region where they are to hold office. The Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters shall likewise be members of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least seven (7) years, with at least three (3) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations: Provided, However, that incumbent Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least five (5) years may be considered as already qualified for purposes of reappointment as such under this Act. The Chairman and the other Commissioners, the Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of sixty-five years, unless sooner removed for cause as provided by law or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Chairman, the division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Appointment to any vacancy shall come from the nominees of the sector which nominated the predecessor. The Executive Labor Arbiters and Labor Arbiters shall also be appointed by the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Labor and Employment and shall be subject to the Civil Service Law,

— The Chairman and other Commissioners shall be members of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15) years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations, and shall preferably be residents of the region where they shall hold office. The Labor Arbiters shall likewise be members of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least ten (10) years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations. The Chairman, the other Commissioners and the Labor Arbiters shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of sixty-five (65) years, unless sooner removed for cause as provided by law or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office: Provided, however, That the President of the Republic of the Philippines may extend the services of the Commissioners and Labor Arbiters up to the maximum age of seventy (70) years upon the recommendation of the Commission en banc. The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President. Appointment to any vacancy in a specific division shall come only from the nominees of the sector which nominated the predecessor. The Labor Arbiters shall also be appointed by the President, upon recommendation of the Commission en banc to a specific arbitration branch preferably in the region where they are residents, and shall be subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations: Provided, That the Labor Arbiters who are presently holding office in the

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 60 of 62

LABOR LAW II
rules and regulations. The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, appoint the staff and employees of the Commission and its regional branches as the needs of the service may require, subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and upgrade their current salaries, benefits and other emoluments in accordance with law. (As amended by Section 7, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) region where they are residents shall be deemed appointed thereat. The Chairman of the Commission shall appoint the staff and employees of the Commission and its regional branches as the needs of the service may require, subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and upgrade their current salaries, benefits and other emoluments in accordance with law.

LABOR RELATIONS

Article 216
Salaries, benefits and other emoluments.
The Chairman and members of the Commission shall receive an annual salary at least equivalent to, and be entitled to the same allowances and benefits as those of the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, respectively. The Executive Labor Arbiters shall receive an annual salary at least equivalent to that of an Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment and shall be entitled to the same allowances and benefits as that of a Regional Director of said Department. The Labor Arbiters shall receive an annual salary at least equivalent to, and be entitled to the same allowances and benefits as that of an Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment. In no case, however, shall the provision of this Article result in the diminution of existing salaries, allowances and benefits of the aforementioned officials. (As amended by Section 8, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)

As Amended
Salaries, Benefits Emoluments. and

The Chairman and members of the Commission shall have the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to, and be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and benefits as those of the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, respectively. Labor Arbiters shall have the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to and be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and other benefits and privileges as those of the Judges of the Regional Trial Courts. In no case, however, shall the provision of this Article result in the diminution of the existing salaries, allowances and benefits of the aforementioned officials

100% UP LAW

UP BAROPS 2008

Page 61 of 62

Special Thanks to:

Office of the College Secretary UP College of Law UP Law Center UP College of Law Library UP Law BarOps 2007

Subject Committee │

Res Rosario * Mike Rivera *Grace Pastorfide * Suzy Ojeda

Information Management │ Committee

Chino Baybay [Head] * Simoun Salinas [Deputy] * Rania Joya [Design & Lay-out] * Ludee Pulido [Documentations]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful