You are on page 1of 12

1 |Page

ULP DIGESTED CASES ULP and MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES V CIR (Mariano) 109 PHIL 900 PARAS; October 31, 1960 NATURE Appeal by way of certiorari FACTS - Royal Interocean Lines is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines with head office in Hong Kong. Its branch office in Manila employed Ermidia Mariano who had worked since January 5, 1932, until her discharge on October 23, 1953. - Mariano and the manager of the Manila Branch (Kamerling) developed strained relationship that led the former to lodge with the managing director in Hong Kong a complaint against Kamerling. The latter, with the approval of the head office in Hong Kong, dismissed Mariano. She charged Royal Interocean and Kamerling with ULP in the CIR which decided in her favor and ordered her reinstatement, with back pay. Royal Interocean filed this appeal. ISSUE WON Royal Interocean was guilty of ULP in having dismissed Mariano because the latter had filed charges against Kamerling not connected with or necessarily arising from union activities HELD NO. Ratio Despite the employees' right to self-organization, the employer 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. Reasoning The pertinent legal provision is section 4 (a), subsection 5, of RA 875 which reads: "SEC. 4 Unfair Labor Practice, (a) It shall be Disini unfair labor practice for an employer: . . . (5) To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed charges or for having given or being about to give testimony under this Act." - The CIR construed this as including all cases where an employee is dismissed, discharged or otherwise prejudiced or discriminated against by reason of the filing, by the latter with the court or elsewhere of any charge against his employer. - From a literal and grammatical point of view, the provision has to be interpreted in the sense that the charges, the filing of which is the cause of the dismissal of the employee, must be related to his right to self- organization, in order to give rise to ULP on the part of the employer. Under subsection 5 of section 4 (a), the employee's (1) having filed charges or (2) having given testimony or (3) being about to give testimony, are modified by "under this Act" appearing after the last item. In other words, the three acts must have reference to the employees' right to self organization and collective bargaining, because the element of ULP is interference in such right. It would be redundant to repeat "under this Act" after each enumeration connected by the disjunctive conjunction "or". - In this case, Mariano's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not arise from her union activities. Disposition The appealed decision is REVERSED. _______________________ MARIANO vs. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES (1961) FACTS  Petitioner Ermidia A. Mariano was a stenographer-typist and filing clerk of respondent when she was dismissed from work. She sent a letter to the managing directors of the company in HK through its manager in the Philippines, respondent J.V. Kamerling. In the letter, she complained about Kamerling’s “inconsiderate and untactful attitude” towards the employees under him and the clients of the company. Kamerling adviced petitioner that her letter had been forwarded to the managing directors in HK and that said directors believed that it was impossible to maintain her in the company.  Petitioner sought reconsideration of her dismissal from the managing directors in HK but received no answer to any of her 5 letters.  The Company finally offered a “compromise settlement” with the petitioner whereby she would be paid a sum equivalent to 6 months salary, provided that she would sign a quitclaim embodying a provision that she would release the company from any liability arising from her employment. Not satisfied with the compromise, the petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company. The CIR rendered judgment holding the company guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered them to reinstate petitioner to her former position.

since he had prepared the letter. “his normal prerogrative to hire or dismiss them.  In turn. the counsel for the labor union filed a case for “Grave Slander” against the general manager. ROCHE PHARMACEUTICALS (1987) FACTS:  The petitioners. Hence. Despite the employees right to self organization. Moso when as in this case there is a clause in the CBA whethe employees are classified into those who are membeof the union and those who are not. Both the employand the union members are bound by such agreement. the dismissal did not constitute Unfair Labor Practice.”  Feeling that he was the one alluded to. the employer still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees. committed an unfair labor practice. EMPLOYEES UNION (1989) FACTS:  The management issued a Memorandum Circular introducing a profitsharing scheme for its managers and supervisors. Issue: Whether the petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice in dismissing the respondent Held: NO. the company distributed the profit-sharing benefit not only to the managers and supervisors but also to all rank-and-file employees not covered by the CBA because they were excluded from the definition of bargaining unit.  This caused the respondent Union to file a notice of strike alleging that petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice because the union were discriminated against in the grant of the profit sharing benefits Issue: Whether the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its non-union member employees is discriminatory against its workers who are union members and amounts to ULP? . but the employer did not commit Unfair Labor Practice because the act has no union connection. they were suspended and later on dismissed. INC. instead of discussing the problems affecting the labor union and management. they derive their benefits from the termand conditions of the CBA contract which constitute tlaw between the contracting parties. In the case of tunion members. this appeal. Issue: Whether respondent company. vs. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to temployees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under tambit of its managerial prerogative.2 |Page Held: NO. all officers of the Roche Products Labor Union.” Hence. the company and the manager filed a complaint for “Perjury” against petitioners alleging that their affidavit contained false statements  The company construed the execution by petitioners of the affidavit as an “act of breach of trust and confidence.  Respondent Union wrote to petitioner to ask that the union members be allowed to participate in the profit-sharing program. Petition Denied. The management denied the request on the ground that such participation was not provided in the CBA  When renegotiation of the CBA was approaching. As the respondent's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not arise from her union activities. ___________________________________ WISE AND CO. INC. There can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated. WISE AND CO. _________________________ DABUET vs. the company’s general manager allegedly berated the petitioners for writing the said letter and called the letter and the person who prepared it “stupid.  At the meeting. The SC ruled in favor of the company. Discrimination per se is not unlawful. Petition Granted There can be no discrimination committed by petitioner as the situation of the union employees are different and distinct from the non-union employees. the court ruled that the dismissal of the employee was unjustified.  The company filed with the SC a petition to review the decision of the CIR.” In this case. the management wrote to the Union that it was willing to consider including the union members in the profits haring scheme provided that the negotiations would be concluded prior to December 1987  Sometime later. The charge was based on the affidavit executed by the petitioners. It appears to habeen done in good faith and without ulterior motive. in terminating the employment of the petitioners without just and lawful cause. wrote the respondent company expressing their grievances and seeking formal conference with management regarding the previous dismissal of the union’s president and vice-president.

COMPROMISE Gochangco Workers Union v. actual or threatened. Inciong. NLRC (1988) Before Batas Blg. assist or otherwise interfere the formation or administration of any labor organization. Gochangco Workers Union v. The latter is in the position of tort – feasor. under the circumstances. Montgomery Ward & Co. the petitioners in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection Breach of trust and confidence. Insular Life Assurance Co.G. (Cruz v. in view of the public interest involved. v." (31 Am. No. dominate.3 |Page Held: YES. With respect to backwages. . _______________ Lockout or Closure Amounting to ULP A lockout. there is no need to consider the applicability of the rule that labor contracts being in personam are not enforceable against the transferee. "The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day and that their jobs were open for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice. but impose as well moral and exemplary damages. L-26519. subject to compromises. L-26519. However. 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Sale in Bad Faith The sale of a business enterprise to avoid the legal consequences of an unfair labor practice is necessarily attended with bad faith and both the vendor and the vendee continue to be liable to the affected workers. ____________________ CLLG E. 30 May 1988 We have held that unfair labor practice cases are not. including the giving of financial “or other support to it. and have been held akin to tort. Gochangco. The said letters were directed to the striking employees individually – by registered special delivery mail at that – without being coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the collective bargaining. we hold the respondent E. 4. Ltd (1971) The respondents contend that the sending of the letters. having been a party likewise responsible for the damage inflicted on the members of the aggrieved union and therefore cannot justly escape liability. ___________________________ ULP Even Before Union is Registered Judric Canning Corporation v. to hold an employer who actually or who threatens to lock out his employees guilty of a violation of this Act. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employers “to initiate. PAFLU. 7029 was enacted into law. exhibits A and B.R. GR No. citing NLRB v. G. Petition Granted Respondent company had committed unfair labor practice in dismissing the petitioners without just and valid cause. "must not be indiscriminately used as a shield to dismiss an employee arbitrarily.” In this particular case. NLRC (1988) In any event.R. or coerce employees in their exercise of their right to self – organization” is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer. Their dismissal. NLRC. the private respondents were dismissed. 29 October 1971) ___________________ Polling Speech Insular Life Assurance Co. subject to comprise. restrain. liable. the grounds alleged for petitioners' dismissal. wherein damages are payable. 563. for backwages equivalent to 3 years without qualification or deduction. Gochangco Workers Union v. 29 October 1971) Where the sale of a business enterprise was attended with bad faith. L-67158. G. Jur. constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech. “to interfere with. as a means of dissuading the employees from exercising their rights under the Act is clearly an unfair labor practice. amounted to interference with. we have held that unfair labor practice cases are not. and restraint or coercion of. GR No. 19 August 1982 Under Art. the evidence must establish that the purpose thereof was to interfere with the employee’s exercise of their rights. Employees Assn. as an active interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives. in view of the public interest involved. No. PAFLU. We do not agree. We therefore not only order herein the reinstatement of the petitioner and the payment of backwages (including cost-of-living allowances) to them. in line with the recommendation of the Solicitor General and in accordance with accepted practice.G. (Cruz v. unfair labor practices were considered administrative offenses. L51494. Inc. because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant. or their services were terminated.

picketing is inherently explosive. Even if this were true. the act of a company president in writing letters to the strikers. Clearfield Cheese Co. he advised the strikers that they could use force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings. restraint or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize. 146 ALR 1045) Indeed. should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light of the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them. 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. 374." "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours. urging their return to work on terms inconsistent with their union membership. Besides. This act of the respondents is considered unjustifiable interference in the union activities of the petitioners and is unfair labor practice. with or without the advice of Ibarra. At any rate. Ltd (1971) The lower Court justified the constructive dismissal of Ibarra allegedly because he committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when. form and join unions as to constitute unfair labor practice . are such instances of interference. who became a "turncoat" and who likewise testified as to the union activities of Atty. when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots. though innocent in themselves. Indeed. The picket line being the natural result of the respondents' ULP. "It has been held in a great number of decisions that espionage by an employer of union activities. Employees Assn. The letters. and that incidents happened only when management men made incursions into and tried to break the picket line.4 |Page [CA 9th] 133 F2d 676. was adjudged as constituting interference with the exercise of his employees' right to collective bargaining (Lighter Publishing. CCA 7th. but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. Inc. or by fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer. Lacsina. 133 F2d 621). some such similar actions are illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of interference.. as president of the union. or an ex-employee . . the only evidence presented by the Companies regarding Ibarra's participation in the strike was the testimony of one Rodolfo Encarnacion. Employees Assn. p. by officials or supervisory employees of the employer. since exhibit A is a letter containing promises of benefits to the employees in order to entice them to return to work.) Espionage Insular Life Assurance Co. Insular Life Assurance Co." "free coffee and occasional movies. v. so they would abandon the strike and ." and "arrangements" for their families." (Rothenberg on Relations. restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self organization than such activity even where no discharges result. it is not protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution (NLRB v. v. Thus.. Moreover.' o The unfair labor practice is committed whether the espionage is carried on by a professional labor spy or detective. the record discloses that the picket line had been generally peaceful. a former member of the board of directors of the petitioner union. Ibarra's misconduct is at most a misdemeanor which is not a bar to reinstatement.. Ricardo Villaruel and others . 213 F2d 70)." o whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications. . And the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is that although the union is on strike. Ltd (1971) Indeed.another matter which emphasizes the respondents' unfair labor practice. o Under this 'doctrine' expressions of opinion by an employer which. o 'Nothing is more calculated to interfere with. there is good ground to believe that Encarnacion was made to spy on the activities of the union members. Insular Life Assurance Co. the employer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative." Economic Coercion And Inducement Insular Life Assurance Co. and cases cited therein.. exhibits A and B. o For under the circumstances. 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. The letters should be interpreted according to the " totality of conduct doctrine. or surveillance thereof. frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered. 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.

a runaway shop. NLRC (1987) FACTS:  Tanduay Distillery. in Laguna. vs.5 |Page return to work. consequently.  Complex received a message from Lite-On Philippines requiring it to lower its price by 10%. likewise. form and join labor organizations are the following acts: o the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal" employees of a company shortly after the making of a request by the union to bargain. Complex informed the employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down the operations of the Lite-On Line. It may be manifested by the employer's act of excluding employees who are union members. which is an act constituting ULP. 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. The following day. The company promised that it would follow the law by giving 1 month notice and retrenchment pay. 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. Complex informed Lite-On that such request was not feasible as they were already incurring losses at the present prices of their products. or for the purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work. ________________ TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. made about 6 weeks after the strike started. Ionics was not set up for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. be said that the temporary closure in Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti-union purposes. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics.  The Complex Employees Union filed a complaint for ULP. In this case. they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization. the employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union. equipment and materials being used for production at Complex were pulled-out from the company premises and transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit. petitioner prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop. (TDI) and Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU) entered into a CBA which contained a “union security clause. therefore. committed ULP HELD: NO Resorting to a runaway shop is ULP.  Sometime later. At the time the labor dispute arose. wage increases given for the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union. they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and. Its customers were foreign-based companies with different product lines. 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” is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws. Ionics was already existing as an independent company. We. the machinery. accident insurance. Inc. illegal closure/illegal lockout and money claims. petitioner asserts that Complex owns the majority of the shares comprising the increased capital stock of Ionics. to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work. One of its customers is the Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co. and the employer's statement. Complex totally closed its operation. profit. when they are represented by a union. "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of subsection (a) (1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act. Lockout is the temporary refusal of employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Inc. disagree with the Union that there was in this case an illegal lockout/illegal dismissal. NLRC (1999) FACTS:  Complex Electronics Corporation was a subcontractor of electronic products. and a new building to work in. of unfair labor practice It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer reinstatement to striking employees individually. To prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop.” which provided: . since the employees thus offered reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be. Likewise violative of the right to organize." _____________ COMPLEX ELECTRONICS UNION. Issue: Whether Complex Electronics Corp.sharing. The Union alleged that the reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the employees. It cannot.

as a condition of their continued employment. The respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their agreement when it separated the herein complainants upon the recommendation of said union.6 |Page “All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract. Thus. in violation of Section 4(b). joined another union. pursuant to its constitution and by-laws. 1955. and claiming to act in pursuance of such Article II and in compliance with the aforementioned agreement.”  While the CBA was still in effect. Upon the merits of the case presiding judge absolved union while finding company guilty of unfair labor practices in dismissing 46 employees thereof and ordering said company "to cease and desist . the company terminated the employment of the disaffiliating union members. Anakan Lumber Co. As a consequence.  The TDLU required those who disaffiliated to explain why they should not be punished for “disloyalty. CIR dismiss the charge of union domination against the company. it is at the same time postulated that such right shall not injure the right of the labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein. Thereafter. the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized its local chapter in TDI.” TDLU created a committee to investigate its erring members. although entitled to disaffiliation from their union and to form a new organization of their own must however. Issue: Whether the dismissal of the disaffiliating members pursuant to a security clause constitutes ULP Held: NO The private respondents cannot escape the effects of the security clause of their own applicable CBA. or in discriminating against them to whom membership in the respondent United Workers' Union have been terminated on grounds other than the usual terms and conditions of membership made available to other members by expelling them as members from the said Union in violation of the respondent union's Constitution and By-laws and who were subsequently dismissed by the respondent Anakan Lumber Company on demand by the respondent United Workers' Union. April 29. 1960 Nature This is an unfair labor practice case instituted at the instance of the Confederated Sons of Labor against the Anakan Lumber Company and the United Workers' Union The amended complaint filed with the Court of Relations charged said respondents with unfair labor practices committed by Anakan Lumber Company through dominating. the latter caused this unfair labor practice proceedings to be instituted. are valid and binding. on January 23. we held that "petitioners. 875. It appears that respondent union has a membership of more than 1. suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA" ____________________ Confederated Sons of Labor v. if freely and voluntarily entered into. Also the United Workers' Union in causing the respondent Anakan Company to discriminate against the workers mentioned in Paragraph IV of the foregoing complaint in violation of Section 4 (a). The committee recommended that the disaffiliating members be expelled and that they should be terminated from service in pursuant to the union security clause. upon the authority of Article II of said "Collective Bargaining and Closed Shop Agreement". the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute ULP.000 laborers and employees of the company. into a contract entitled "Collective Bargaining and Closed Shop Agreement". subparagraph 2 Of Republic Act No. subparagraph 4 of the Act by demanding from the respondent Anakan Lumber Company the dismissal of said workers from their work therein. a number of the TDLU. respondent union demanded from the company the dismissal of these 46 employees. Acting on said request. In Villar v. Union Security Clauses in CBA. the company dismissed said 46 employees. which is another labor organization. Such a stipulation is not only necessary to maintain loyalty and preserve the integrity of the union but is allowed by the Magna Charta of Labor when it provided that while it is recognized that an employee shall have the right to selforganization. Subsequently. Concepcion . become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall. 46 employees of the company and members of respondent union joined petitioner herein. Inasmuch as they are members of petitioner herein. said 46 employees were expelled from respondent union. maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement. Inciong. with whom it entered. assisting and interferring with the administration of the respondent United Workers' Union and by contributing financial and other support to it and in discriminating in regards to hire or tenure of employment for the purpose of encouraging membership in the respondent United Workers' Union and/or discouraging membership in the complainant Confederated Sons of Labor or because of union membership or activity by dismissing and in fact did dismiss without cause all its workers affiliated with the complainant union and replaced by new ones.

-ULGWP advised respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause. Emphasis ours... security guards and all departments in its many phases of operations. Inc. is free to serve the interests of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation to which it belongs when circumstances warrant.00 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local union culminating in the latter's declaration of general autonomy -The officials of ULGWP called a Special National Executive Board Meeting where a Resolution was passed placing the MSMG under trusteeship and appointing respondent Cesar Clarete as administrator.. -The said administrator wrote the respondent company informing the latter of its designation of a certain Alfredo incumbent union officers from representing the employees. cited in Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. in his work on Labor Relations. The company at first refused but later. 2899. 615. Greenfield Inc. The company did not deduct. and Alfredo T. MSMG wrote to respondent company saying that they deduct the P50 from the employees’ salaries. excepting such positions which are highly technical and confidential in character and/or such positions which carry the exercise of authority in the interest of the COMPANY which exercise is not merely clerical or routinary within the contemplation of the law. ULGWP opposed and wrote to respondent company. being a separate and voluntary association. National Employees-Workers Security Union. p. As such they were fined with P50 by the union. Inc. (National Labor Union vs. in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. and privilege to supply the COMPANY with such laborers." MFR reversed. Aguinaldo's Echague. ISSUE/S 1. -MSMG was an affiliate of respondent United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP) (Federation). No. Gaz. 53 Off. -MSMG held a general membership meeting. has the following to say about "closed shop": ____________ : MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA M. Thus. 51 Off. subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. Gaz. . Definition of Closed-Shop Agreement: Closed-Shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their job. Garcia vs. and that the COMPANY agrees to employ or hire in any of its departments only such person or persons who are members of the UNION.7 |Page from engaging in unfair labor practice and to reinstate the 46 employees concerned. it is erroneous to consider such a closed shop agreement. No.The petitioner union officers received identical letters from the administrator requiring them to explain within 72 hours why they should not be removed from their office and expelled from union membership.) Rothenberg. This action by the national federation was protested by the petitioners . 2000 NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS -Petitioner MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA M. A local union. office. WON MSMG’s disaffiliation was an act of disloyalty to ULGWP HELD 1. review for certiorari. February 28. GREENFIELD V RAMOS 326 SCRA 428 PURISIMA. free to serve their own and the common interest of all. NO Ratio A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. -The imposition of P50. Many did not attend. employees and workers as are necessary in the logging. Reasoning -The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union or a federation is to increase by collective action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association. Issue Whether the company was bound to expel the aforementioned 46 employees under the provisions of said Article II of its collective bargaining agreement with respondent union Held That the UNION shall have the exclusive right. with back wages from the date of their separation from its service until reinstated. GREENFIELD (MSMG) had a union security clause provision on their CBA with respondent M. when the ULGWP declared a strike against them. and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it into existence. logponds. they subsequently agreed. sawmill. 6. motor pools. mechanical.

S realized it. no lock-out" clause in the CBA. the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike. -The evidence on hand does not show that there is such a provision in ULGWP's constitution. 326 SCRA 428 (2000) 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. The following day. Petitioners believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by the federation. Malayang Samahan v. the intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union. no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is economic in nature. the presumption of legality of the strike prevails. Ramos (2000) With regard to the issue of the legality or illegality of the strike. When Mr. The autonomy of a local union affiliated with ULGWP shall be respected insofar as it pertains to its internal affairs. The company was not justified in dismissing the employees based on the federation’s demand for enforcement of the security clause. Ramos . Section 6. he wants to take back his letter of resignation. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation's constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union. the company may still be held liable if it was remiss in its duty to accord the would-be dismissed employees their right to be heard on the matter. A no strike. But X refused and said that it is too late for S because .e. that is. S is always complaining about X’s leadership. other employees reporting for work and third persons having legitimate business with the company. and (3) it was attended with violence. -There is no disloyalty to speak of. and (3) for violation of the union's Constitution and By-Laws Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Mr. Again. S then filed his letter of resignation to the Union. if freely and voluntarily entered into. Thus. the Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a strike. to force wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. 6. respondent company was guilty of unfair labor practice in that it violated the petitioner’s right to self-organization. force and intimidation upon the persons of the company officials. X tells Mr. Ramos. Section 4 of the union security clause in the CBA limits the dismissal to only three (3) grounds. the issue was transformed into a termination dispute and brought respondent company into the picture. Hence. S is a former union president. Even on the assumption that the federation had valid grounds to do so. 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 fact. 28 February 2000 Union security clauses in the collective bargaining agreements. Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Also. as was the honest belief of herein petitioners. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute unfair labor practice. When X was elected union president. On the submission that the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non strikeable issue. Respondents' reliance upon Article V.  Even if the allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to be untrue. notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal was at the instance of the federation. neither is there any violation of the federation's constitution because there is nothing in the said constitution which specifically prohibits disaffiliation or declaration of autonomy. The strike was staged to protest respondent company’s act of dismissing the union officers. 113907. __________________ QUERY: (SALUNGA CASE): Mr. whether or not there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike. S that if he is dissatisfied then why continue being a member. resulting to serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to company property. a local may dissociate with its parent union. such a ruling is erroneous. Mr. to wit: failure to maintain membership in the union (1) for nonpayment of union dues. except as provided elsewhere in this Constitution. of the federation's constitution is not right because said section.8 |Page -Thus. the personnel manager of the Corp. (2) for resignation. Greenfield v. i. called Mr. GR No. Again. S about the Union Security Clause that continued membership is a condition for continued employment. are valid and binding. there cannot be any valid dismissal because Article II. due process requires that these union officers be accorded a separate hearing by respondent company. Ramos (2000) Another reason why the Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal is due to the existence of a no strike no lockout provision in the CBA. it bears reiterating that when respondent company dismissed the union officers. bolsters the petitioner union's claim of its right to declare autonomy: Sec.

to be given to the lawyer for atty. that is still a regular conduct. WON disaffiliation of local union from the national federation was valid 3. NATU requested Tropical Hut to dismiss Encinas because of his “violations”. When he resigned and the union accepted his resignation.A petition was made to cancel the word NATU after the word THEU in the registration. THEU affiliated with CGW. 1990 NATURE Petition for certiorari. Tropical Hut also suspended and applied for clearance to dismiss members and officers of THEU-CGW. . .’s fees. The amount entered into by the union is binding.P.Tropical Hut suspended Encinas pending application for clearance with Dept of Labor to dismiss him.. it only binds union funds. WON dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their unions disaffiliation from the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice . if the ER finds that the EE was not granted Due Process. S illegally dismissed. WON petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they immediately elevated the case to this Court without an appeal having been made to the Office of the President 2. But NATU itself was not registered as a federation. President of Union. In Golden Donuts. but it is to find out whether the EE was given his day before the union officers. the V. was appointed Manager. . Q: Can the union enter into a contract with an attorney w/ respect to the dispute and pledge contribution from each union member? A: YES. . it can only bring the case for them. ISSUE/S 1. writes to the ER for the dismissal of an EE whose membership is terminated and the ER dismissed said EE. all the 262 were the RPII.Dilag. Jan 20. Q: Is Mr.Rank and file workers of Tropical Hut organized a Union (THEU) and sought affiliation with NATU. but the ER failed to CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION on whether or not the EE was granted Due Process.9 |Page the resignation had been accepted. To terminate S on the basis of the USC and also the mgt. Take Note of the MATTER of EMPLOYER’s INVESTIGATION is: “Whether or not the EE is granted Due Process under the constitution and by-laws of the CBA. He resigned as President of THEU-NATU. Since that is an application and there is NO GRAVE and SUBSTANTIAL reason to deny his application. Q: When can the ER be obliged to pay back wages and damages? A: If a Union. It cannot just be deducted because that will be special assessments. terminated S> Then s filed an illegal dismissal case and for ULP because he was dismissed for his lawful exercise of the Right to SO. Reinstatements of complainants were also ordered. VP Encinas assumed presidency. it does not bind them. TROPICAL HUT FOOD MARKET INC. But if it is not signed individually by each union member as to deduction from their salaries. Q: What is the difference between the Dionela and Golden Donuts case: A: In Dionela.CBA was concluded bet the 2 parties.THEU wrote NATU saying they want to disaffiliate from the federation. The union cannot sign for them. _________________ TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION V. This is the same in ABS-CBN Supervisors Union vs NLRC.THEU-CGW conducted elections and Encinas won. . Q: Who will pay his backwages? A: It is the union and not the management because the latter was supposed to have terminated S in good faith.Upon request of NATU. . but it can never sign for them. then the ER is obliged to pay solidarity with the union for back wages and damages as a consequence of the dismissal from work. by virtue of a USC. X called the Mgt. then ER is under no obligation to comply with the request of the union. THEU-CGW members protested. therefore. where everybody signed except a few.” The investigation is not on the merits of the EE’s is dismissed from the union. he should have been accepted because there was a USC. They were signing authority to deduct from whatever they would get in the CBA. Registration certificate was issued by Dept of Labor.NLRC directed certification election between THEU-NATU and THEUCGW. . with no choice. 181 SCRA 173 MEDIALDEA. S Correct? A: YES. and the 27 union members were NOT the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST (RPII) because the RPII is the union representing the 3 who were dismissed. FACTS . . but when he act to take back his resignation. such act is equivalent to a re-application. each one of them must sign the compromise. However.

Just because the local union registered as THEU-NATU. is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. A local union. _____________ GANA NOTES: In Tropical Hut Employees' Union vs. NATU was not even a legitimate labor organization.There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the act of disaffiliation violated the union security clause of the CBA and that their dismissal as a consequence thereof is valid. . Although NATU was designated as the sole bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form attached to the CBA. . When the local withdraw to join a new federation. Thereupon. Tropical Hut (181 SCRA 174). Since nothing in the CBL prevents disaffiliation.The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well settled. or else. CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. . Moreover. YES .On September 24. 1957. All that means is that you were an affiliate of NATU at the time you registered. be dismissed. 1957.In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may severe its relationship with its parent. the SC held that since a local union is a separate and vol. being a separate and voluntary association. So. composed of employees and laborers of the Company.R. and not the NATU federation. was recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent. NATU is not even registered. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some . 3. association. A perusal of the collective bargaining agreements shows that the THEU-NATU. it was simply exercising its rights to organize. the act of non-compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right of self-organization.The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the Department of Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the registration. 2. the Company issued a notice bearing the same date. but an optional relief provided by law to parties seeking expeditious disposition of their labor disputes. free to serve the interests of all its members. L-18112 CONCEPCION.The union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals. October 30. addressed to all of its employees. giving non-members of the Workers' Union 30 days within which to join the same. and respondent Hamilton Workers' Union (Workers' Union). Secondly. this simply means it was acting only for and in behalf of its affiliate. that does not mean you can't live without NATU. this Court finds that it was hastily and summarily done without the necessary due process. NO Remedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the Office of the President is not a mandatory requirement before resort to courts can be had. A local owes its creation to its members. even if the CBL required 3 months' prior notice and the local did not follow it. not the federation. There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the constitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation. HELD 1. were registered with the Department of Labor. It cannot rise above the fundamental right to organize. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own. NATU possessed the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic principal union. namely. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. incorporated into a private instrument purporting to have been executed on September 24. it has the right to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. a local may sever its relations with its parent. NATU did not lose its personality as bargaining agent ___________________ KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK V HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY G. 1962 NATURE Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations FACTS . two labor unions. the SC said that's a mere technicality. it appearing that it was not registered. .With regard to the process by which the workers were suspended or dismissed. YES . Firstly. Secondly. the latter and the Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement. petitioner Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa ng Alak (NAFLU).10 | P a g e employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation. No.

it is clear that a petition for certification election. Likewise. if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section twelve. we find it difficult to avoid the feeling that the Workers' Union was. Thereafter. or else be dismissed — bear the same date. Co Bon Beng refused to admit him to work.Indeed. those who remained affiliated to the NAFLU were allowed to work only 2 days a week and on October 28. also. . 1957. 1957 some members of the NAFLU. prior to the expiration of the period given by the Company to non-members of the Workers' Union." ----------------injunctive relief. that the agreement was made in a Private instrument. Considering further that said agreement was contained in a private document.The dismissed employees reported the matter to the Court of Industrial Relations. at least organized under the patronage of the Company. . the record shows that. Otherwise the agreement could have been executed before a notary public for the corresponding acknowledgment. and that the same was in such a hurry to bargain with the Workers' Union. 1957. the NAFLU filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for certification. who as such. its aforementioned superintendent and manager. praying. its collective bargaining agreement with the Company and the notice issued by the Company — giving its employees who were not members of the Workers' Union 30 days to join the same. thus suggesting that it must have been made late at night. and that the NAFLU was. who did not join the Workers' Union. would have. in all probability.11 | P a g e . had supervisory authority over its employees and laborers. the Company had to dismiss 52 members of the NAFLU. respondents denied the charge and invoked a "closed shop" clause in the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers' Union. . note-worthy is the circumstance that. and inquired whether it was true that he had organized said labor union and was its president. were dismissed by the Company. In their answer to this complaint. among other things. because otherwise they would be dismissed by the Company. if not compel. . Considering that the Company had altogether around 100 employees only. Subsequently. and (2) WON the dismissal of members of the NAFLU who had failed and refused to join the Workers' Union constitutes an unfair labor practice. relying upon the "closed shop" clause of said agreement reading: "That the COMPANY shall establish the policy of 'Union Shop' effective October 24. 2. Co Bon Beng (superintendent of Company) sent for Francisco Dumlao. although the Workers' Union was registered on September 24. in order to beat the NAFLU and prevent it from taking appropriate action prior thereto. aside from being a Chinese.On September 24. 1957. That nothing in this Act or in any other Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein. despite several defections from the NAFLU. 1957. Co Bon Beng urged Dumlao to dissolve the NAFLU. YES . if not company dominated. HELD 1. registered as a duly organized labor union. an urgent petition for an ---------------1 To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided. upon the ground that he was unwilling to dissolve the NAFLU. the case is now before us on appeal by certiorari taken by the NAFLU.Upon learning that the NAFLU was being organized. When Dumlao answered that he could not follow this advice. said Court rendered a decision dismissing the unfair labor practice case. A reconsideration of such decision having been denied by the Court sitting en banc. On November 25. Beginning from September 30. them to join the Workers' Union. 1957. if filed by the NAFLU prior to the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the Workers' Union and the company. exercise substantial pressure upon them to induce.The provisions of the CBA do not legalize the dismissal of members of the NAFLU. for failure to join the Workers' Union within said period. for otherwise he would be dismissed. Upon receipt of an affirmative answer. and that the treasurer thereof was his brother Benito Kaw. This petition was denied. another Chinese. All workers shall by that date become .On October 11. YES . the NAFLU filed. with which a formal complaint for unfair labor practice was filed against the Company. barred effectively said agreement. the president of the Workers' Union was the timekeeper of the Company. on the date aforementioned. therefore. The lower court held otherwise. that the effectivity of the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers' Union be suspended and that the Company be ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees or laborers with backpay.One cannot minimize the importance of the fact that. some members thereof resigned therefrom and joined the Workers' Union. Co Bon Beng bade him to look for another job. and could. in the unfair labor practice proceedings. ISSUE (1) WON the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers' Union had been made fraudulently. apart from its president. Valentin Kaw. 1957. and the Workers' Union.

At any rate. then such stipulation would be null and void. 1957. or face discharge. except. she as charged with of abandonment of job and stealing of company property.  Thereafter.In this connection. _____________ NO DIGEST FOR PICOP __________________ GOOD LUCK TO US =) .  Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City Prosecutor's Office to swear to the truth of her statement. In not giving positive testimony in favor of her employer. . but before October 24. The UNION assumes responsibility of individually signing up new laborers. together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. Issue: Whether the dismissal constitutes ULP? Held: YES The act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not. Disposition decision appealed from is reversed _______________ MABEZA vs. and who failed to quit from the latter and join the Workers' Union on or before October 24. finally she was dismissed for loss of confidence. if the Company and the Workers' Union intended. except those monthly salaries employees. it is well settled in this jurisdiction that. in the absence of a manifest intent to the contrary. 1957. The COMPANY shall be free to hire new laborers without giving consideration to their membership or non-membership to the Union. to authorize the dismissal of persons already in the service of said Company on or before September 24. The first act clearly preempts the right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through concerted action. to those who were not as yet affiliated to any labor organization." . all laborers hired must join the UNION within sixty (60) days of employment. those selected by the Management above. Her refusal displeased the employer. or at least. Subsequently. petitioner had reserved not only her right to dispute the claim and proffer evidence in support thereof but also to work for better terms and conditions of employment. 1957. The first sentence of said clause may be construed to refer to laborers or employees admitted after September 24.12 | P a g e members of the UNION. but belonging to another labor organization. However. she was ordered to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings from the hotel. "closed shop" provisions in a collective bargaining agreement apply only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization and that said provisions of the agreement are not applicable to those already in the service at the time of its execution. and other supervisor-employees (technical men) listed by the Management. NLRC (1997) FACTS:  Petitioner Norma Mabeza contends that she and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotel's management to sign an instrument wherein it states that they are in compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provisions of law. by said clause.The language of the above quoted "closed shop" clause is not such as to bar necessarily the limitation of its application to new employees or laborers.