You are on page 1of 11



Unfair Labor Practices
(Art 248-249)
G.R. No. L-20303 September
27, 1967
Republic Savings Bank (now Republic
Bank or RB) discharged/terminated
private respondents Resuello, Jola et
al, for having written and published "a
patently libelous letter, tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt not only of officers and
employees of this bank, but also of
your employer, the bank itself."
Respondents had written to the bank
president, Ramon Racelis, a lettercharge, demanding his resignation on
the grounds of immorality, nepotism
in the appointment and favoritism as
well as discrimination in the promotion
of RB employees.
CIR ruled that RB’s act of dismissing
constituted an unfair labor practice
within the meaning and intendment of
the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). RB
appealed. It still maintains that the
discharge was for cause.
RB’s defense: CIR should have
dismissed the complaint because the
discharge of the respondents had
nothing to do with their union
activities as the latter in fact admitted
at the hearing that the writing of the
letter-charge was not a "union action"
but merely their "individual" act.
WON the dismissal of the 8 employees
by RB constituted unfair labor practice

within the meaning and intendment of
the Industrial Peace Act

YES. Even assuming that respondents
acted in their individual capacities
when they wrote the letter-charge
they were nonetheless protected for
they were engaged in concerted
activity, in the exercise of their right
of self-organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, interference with which
constitutes an unfair labor practice.
The joining in protestor demands,
even by a small group of employees, if
in furtherance of their interests, is a
concerted activity protected by the
Industrial Peace Act. It is not
necessary that union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining
be contemplated.
Re: Meaning of Duty to Bargain
What the RB should have done was to
grievance committee. This was its
duty, failing which it committed an
unfair labor practice RA 875 which
makes it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "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
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

1 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang

they derive their benefits from the terms and conditions of the CBA contract which constitute the law between the contracting parties. RB should have allowed the respondents to air their grievances. 1989 FACTS: The management issued a Memorandum Circular introducing a profit-sharing scheme for its managers and supervisors. Both the employer 2 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. Respondent Union wrote to petitioner to ask that the union members be allowed to participate in the profitsharing program. The management denied the request on the ground that such participation was not provided in the CBA When renegotiation of the CBA was approaching. 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? HELD: NO. the company distributed the profit-sharing benefit not only to the managers and supervisors but also to all rank-andfile employees not covered by the CBA because they were excluded from the definition of bargaining unit. created in the CBA. Indeed. L-87672 October 13. Good faith bargaining required of the Bank an open mind and a sincere desire to negotiate over grievances. Discrimination per se is not unlawful. There can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated. the management wrote to the Union that it was willing to consider including the union members in the profit-sharing scheme provided that the negotiations would be concluded prior to December 1987 Sometime later. More so when as in this case there is a clause in the CBA where the employees are classified into those who are members of the union and those who are not. 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 grievance committee. WCEU-NATU G. Petition Granted. Instead of stifling criticism. would have been an appropriate forum for such negotiation. The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to the employees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative. It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means of maintaining industrial peace. WISE &CO. In the case of the union members. No. It appears to have been done in good faith and without ulterior motive. the grievance procedure is a part of the continuous process of collective bargaining.R. Year 3 | UPang . Disposition AFFIRMED Appealed decision is 46.violation of this obligation is an unfair labor practice. vs.

OF THE PHILS. and thus in effect frustrate the policy of the Industrial Peace Act to encourage unionization. L-28607 May 31. that the serious acts of violence occurring in the course of the strike could be made the basis for holding responsible a leader or a member of the union guilty of their commission. ISSUE: WON the respondent court erred in holding that the strike was illegal and that the dissolution of 18 security guards is a valid exercise of management prerogatives? HELD: No. So an action for reinstatement and payment of full backwages was filed by the union. The judiciary and administrative agencies in construing it must ever be conscious of its implications. To the extent. seek to dissolve its security guard section in its Pandacan branch. 1971 FACTS: Shell Co. Only thus 3 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. however. However. That. the said 18 security guards were transferred to the company’s other branch and were thereafter terminated on the service. Until a Presidential certification was issued ordering them to return-to-work on 6 July 1967 by CIR by virtue of the pending resolution of the case. is the policy behind the Industrial Peace Act. Management then will not always have the upper hand nor be in a position to ignore its just demands. when the newly hired guards was about to start their work. The state is thus under obligation to lend its aid and its succor to the efforts of its labor elements to improve their economic condition. there being a violation of the collective bargaining agreement by Shell Company. this Court cannot lend sanction of its approval to the outright dismissal of all union officers. a move that certainly would have the effect of considerably weakening a labor organization. what there is of it. It can bargain as a collectivity. & CIR G. there would be a strike. It is now generally accepted that unionization is a means to such an end. however. SHELL OIL WORKER’S UNION vs. It should be encouraged. The court held that the strike cannot be declared illegal.R. The union made a decision that should there be a replacement of the company guards by a private security agency. what was decided by respondent court should not be disturbed.and the union members are bound by such agreement. at any rate. 47. labor’s strength. SHELL OIL CO. The Department of Labor tried to conciliate the parties but failed to settle the issues raised. The company then hired a private security agency to undertake the work of said security guards. notwithstanding its being embraced in the then existing CBA contract as rank-and-file employees. becomes solidified. No. Even if it were otherwise. CIR rendered its decision in favor of the company and held strike as illegal for the dissolution was a valid exercise of management prerogative and that no ULP was committed by the company. So a strike took in place on 25 March 1967. Year 3 | UPang . The plain and unqualified constitutional demand of protection to labor should not be lost weight of. Thereby.

In 1958. was incorporated in 1920. management sent to the employees of the Company letters of termination of employment due to “poor business”. That is to negate the fundamental principle that the Constitution is the supreme law. instead of its corporate existence expiring on May 27. to take over the latter's business. 1970.000. 1961.00 was exactly the same authorized capital stock of Aronson. ARONSON & CO. In the month of September of that year. Inc. On the other hand. their services were to be terminated on the 31st of that month. In this manner the union members obtained labor benefits. the employees of the Company who were not members of the respondent Union were allowed to continue working up to that date. 1961 Aronson's original Articles of Incorporation were amended so that. the same having been renewed March 23. On January 6. because of the dismissal of Eugenia Solon. in other words.00. ALU G. 1961. the employees who were union members declared a second strike in December of that year. It will thus be seen that the two new corporations were organized to engage in exactly the same business in which Aronson had been engaged. The management eventually acceded to their demands and entered into a collective bargaining agreement with them on January 6. 1960.. her co-employees who were union members declared a strike which was soon settled as a result of conciliation negotiations initiated by the Cebu Regional Office of the Department of Labor. L-23010 July 9. and 4 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. When the Company refused to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. 48.000. In the course of time it became an Aronson family controlled corporation. Then on February 13.R. On July 15. The total authorized capital stock of the two new corporations amounting to P500. No. a union member. then Assistant Manager Donato Medel was incorporated with a capital stock of P100.00. all the employees of Aronson who were members of the respondent Union were required to stop working in spite of the fact that. Sometime thereafter. 1971 FACTS: Aronson. ET AL vs. there would be neglect or disregard. Year 3 | UPang .00 and a corporate life of 50 years expiring on May 27. another new corporation. with an authorized capital stock of P5000..may there bee fidelity to what is ordained by the fundamental law.. For if it were otherwise. it was made to expire 9 years earlier. originally known as Moody Aronson & Co. 1959. and on July 17 of the same year. Photo Materials was also incorporated with an authorized capital stock of P400. 1960. On March 9. the respondent Union and its members made demands for a collective bargaining agreement with the Company to obtain certain benefits in connection with their working conditions. according to the notice of termination of employment served on them. 13 of its 25 employees became members of the respondent Associated Labor Union. instead of protection. H. or less than a month after such amendment had been accomplished.000. 1970.000.

and 2. Their contention that the dissolution of Aronson was due to "poor business" is. with a notice of strike on the ground that the 5 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran.R. The employees concerned filed a complaint for unfair labor practices to which CIR found respondentpetitioners guilty and ordered them to cease and desist from such acts. WON CIR had jurisdiction over the case. The true cause of the termination of the services of the complainants is their membership with the Associated Labor Union and their union activities. a CBA was entered into by petitioner and the SMC with a provision entitling employees to a basic monthly compensation plus commission based on their respective sales. upon the record. L-53515 February 8. or were intended to accomplish the dismissal of the individual respondents. the Court concluded. they took the present appeal. and the subsequent incorporation of the other two petitioners were part and parcel of a plan. to which the complainants are affiliated. BLAS F. and to reinstate the complainants to their former positions under the same terms and conditions of employment with back wages from the time they were illegally dismissed until they are actually reinstated. Attempts were made by the management to break the majority then held by the Union but it was not successful. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION (PTGWO) vs. The Court held that CIR had jurisdiction over the case and the petitioners herein. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied subsequently by the court en banc. and in granting to the individual respondents the relief set forth in the appealed order. 1989 FACTS: In April 1978. HON.thereafter they continued working because they were absorbed or reemployed by the newly organized corporations: Photo Materials and Medel. This finding is supported by the antecedent facts that since its establishment in 1920 the only instance when the management of the H. 2. 49. Year 3 | UPang . declared two strikes wherein the union decisively got what it wanted from the reluctant management. the company introduced a marketing scheme known as the "Complementary Distribution System" (CDS) whereby its beer products were offered for sale directly to wholesalers through San Miguel's sales offices. The appealed Order was affirmed. In September 1979. No. Aronson & Company began to find interference in the conduct of its business affairs was in 1958 when the Associated Labor Union. that it correctly found petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice. Yes. The shortening of the corporate life or dissolution of Aronson. The labor union filed a complaint for ULP in the Ministry of Labor. No. OPLE and SMC G. clearly without merit. WON it erred in finding the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice HELD: 1. ISSUE: 1.

PAFLU G. and wholesalers had to buy beer products from them. these workers formed a union called PTGWO. PAFLU then instituted an action against the Tan spouses for ULP. But due to union’s unreasonable delay in discussing the CBA contract to the factory.CDS was contrary to the existing marketing scheme whereby the Route Salesmen were assigned specific territories within which to sell their stocks of beer. by a majority vote was declared as the winning CB representative of the factory’s workers. SMC's offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so. RULING: No. ISSUE: 6 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. A month later. Year 3 | UPang . 1971 FACTS: Quality Container Factory is a joint business ventured by the Tan spouses. Notwithstanding the protest lodged by PTGWO. After the issue of certification was decided by CIR. however. So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements. L-26519 October 29. No. the factory received a notice of its existence with their collective bargaining proposals. CIR sustained the claim of PAFLU that the sale of the factory was tainted by bad faith and designed to avoid bargaining collectively with it as the duly chosen representative of such employee. The lower court correctly held that the CDS is a valid exercise of management prerogatives. CARLOS CRUZ vs.R. PAFLU proposed to continue the negotiations to possibly finalize a CBA contract with the management but a month later. In January 1961. not from the company. The Minister of Labor approved the private respondent's marketing scheme and dismissed the labor union's complaint for unfair labor practice. It was alleged that the new marketing scheme the CBA as the CDS would reduce the take-home pay of the salesmen and their truck helpers for the company would be unfairly competing with them. 50. ISSUE: WON the CDS constituting ULP. And an order was given for the reinstatement of union members with full backwages. employing hired hands in the manufacture and sale of tin cans. violates the CBA. elected its officers and had it registered with the Department of Labor. a complaint was filed by the company against the union. the factory was sold to Carlos Cruz. PAFLU.called "back adjustment commission" to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.

BATAAN SHIPYARD vs. All of the retrenched employees are officers and members of the NAFLU. 51. with no satisfactory justification why said employees were singled out. RULING: No. The Company has thousand employees in its payroll and more than a hundred of them belong to the said labor organization. It refused to countenance the resulting dismissal of the members respondent Union. constitutes ULP. Clearly. 78604 May 9. The Court held that the assignment of error of petitioners as to the absence of bad faith appears to be without sufficient legal basis. tainted with bad faith. The retrenchment of employees who belong to a particular union. the Company had indeed been discriminatory in selecting the employees who were to be retrenched. ISSUE: Whether the Company is guilty of discriminatory acts in the selection of employees to be retrenched HELD: YES. All of those so retrenched happen to be officers and members of the NAFLU. compounded by another actuation amounting to discrimination in regard to tenure or condition of employment against a labor union.R. It ordered the reinstatement. an act which amounts to interference in the employees' exercise of their right FACTS: 7 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran.. Sometime before 1984. This certainly cannot be one of those cases which the judgment arrived at by respondent Court is to ignored. connivance of petitioner Cruz was elicited. 1988 The National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) is a labor organization in petitioner Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. However. Its decision far from being repugnant to law is in conform with it. The case was remanded to CIR for further proceedings. No. Year 3 | UPang . Respondent Judge Co was not blind to such an attempt at evasion. the failure of the Tan spouses to bargain collectively with respondent Union when they were called to do so was unfair labor practice. In the meantime. the Company filed with the NLRC an “application for the retrenchment” of 285 of its employees on the ground that the firm had been incurring heavy losses. NLRC G. It leads us to conclude that the firm had been discriminating against membership in the NAFLU. Inc. The retrenchment undertaken by the Company is valid.WON CIR erred in holding the failure of the factory owners to bargain collectively and the sale of the factory as unfair labor practice. He cannot be deprived of his labor or work without due process of law. some employees who had been on sick leave earlier were considered retrenched. much less set aside. In this case. the manner in which this is exercised should not be tainted with abuse of discretion. Labor is a person's means of livelihood. Apparently in an effort to avoid the legal consequences of such conduct frowned upon by the law. Necessary the sale was attended with bad faith.

maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement. if freely and voluntarily entered into. L-25291 May 5.R. The private respondents cannot escape the effects of the security clause of their own applicable CBA. ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the disaffiliating members pursuant to a security clause constitutes ULP. Inc.of self-organization. joined another union. 52. as a condition of their continued employment. The TDLU required those who disaffiliated to explain why they should not be punished for “disloyalty. LTD. G.. 1987 FACTS: Tanduay Distillery. 8 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. NLRC G. a number of the TDLU. No. 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. INSULAR LIFE EAU-NATU vs.” While the CBA was still in effect. No. The committee recommended that the disaffiliating members be expelled and that they should be terminated from service in pursuant to the union security clause.” which provided: “All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract. Thus. (TDI) and Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU) entered into a CBA which contained a “union security clause. the company terminated the employment of the disaffiliating union members. 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 In Villar v. The respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their agreement when it separated the herein complainants upon the recommendation of said union. TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. HELD: NO. although entitled to disaffiliation from their union and to form a new organization of their own must however. Union Security Clauses in CBA. Inciong. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 1977 FACTS: Unions Insular Life Assurance EA-NATU and FGU Insurance Group Workers & EA-NATU entered into separate CBAs with Insular and FGU.” 53. Acting on said request. suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA. Year 3 | UPang . we held that "petitioners.R. are valid and binding. become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall. This interference is considered an act of ULP. 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 self-organization.” TDLU created a committee to investigate its erring members. the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized its local chapter in TDI. 75037 April 30.

The Unions seasonably filed their MFR. b." Following the failure of the Companies to answer the demands of the Unions with counter-proposals. On even date. HELD: a. After trial on the merits. the CIR dismissed the Unions' complaint for lack of merit. threats and reprisal — by registered special delivery mail at that — without being coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the collective bargaining. Yes. along with a petition for injunction with damages. but were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop. Despite securing their respective clearances. And when the striking employees 9 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. which was granted. Yes. this petition. Before readmission. hence." without however stating the specific acts allegedly committed. the Companies required of the employees clearances from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila and for them to undergo screening by a management committee. Alleging that some non-strikers were injured. the Unions went on strike. The said letters were directed to the striking employees individually containing a promise of benefit. It is a violation of the IPA. which filed their answer denying all the material allegations of the complaint and asking for dismissal. the Companies filed criminal charges against the strikers. Year 3 | UPang . but was denied. Record shows that not a single dismissed striker was given the opportunity to defend himself against the supposed charges against him. in sending out individual ultimatum letters. Yes. the Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies for a modified renewal of their respective collective bargaining contracts which were then about to expire. for dismissing officials and members of the Unions. and d. An attempt of the management to break thru the Unions' picket lines during the strike resulted to injuries.In 1957. on the ground that they committed "acts inimical to the interest of the respondents. which adamantly refused 34 officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the strike. the Unions filed in January 1958 a notice of strike for "deadlock on collective bargaining. for discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in the matter of readmission of employees after the strike c. Negotiations were conducted on the Union's proposals. b. in not ordering the reinstatement of officials and members of the Unions. ISSUES: WON CIR erred in not finding the Companies guilty of unfair labor practice: a. the CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies. c. 34 officials and union members were still refused readmission on the alleged ground that they committed acts inimical to the Companies. with full back wages. This was discriminatory to the fact that nonstrikers who also had pending criminal charges against them arising from the same incidents were readily readmitted and were not required to secure clearances. As a result of which.

No.reported back for work. CIR dismissed 4 counts and found the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice on 2 counts: a. On the same date. an unfair labor practice on 6 counts was filed against Manila Hotel Company. L-30818 and L-30139) were filed on various dates in 1969 involving the same parties and various incidents between them. Republic Act 4180. the respondents still refused to take them back and instead they received letters confirming the termination of their employment due to “acts of misconduct” while picketing during the strike. In the first case L-30755. with full back wages as it is clear that the Unions went on strike because of the unfair labor practices committed by the Companies. the charge of discrimination in the granting of the 1965 Christmas bonus. 86 employees of Pines Hotel received written notices that the National Development Company as owner of the Pines Hotel had sold it to the Resort Hotels Corporation and that since petitioner Manila Hotel Company's operation of the hotel would cease effective the next day. PINES HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASS'N G. commencing from an unfair labor practice charge originally filed by respondent union against petitioner company and culminating in supplemental proceedings to enjoin the abrupt dismissal and termination of employment of all eighty-six employees at the Pines Hotel with its sudden sale to a third party." and accordingly prayed inter alia that the case be 10 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. Where the strike was induced and provoked by improper conduct on the part of an employer amounting to an 'unfair labor practice.' the strikers are entitled to reinstatement with back pay. ordering the respondents to reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively similar positions. the charge of discrimination in the granting of salary adjustments pursuant to the then newly enacted Minimum Wage Law. which was then engaged in the operation of the Pines Hotel in Baguio City. 54. except three. the Companies refused to readmit them without the necessary clearances. and another is entered. After due hearing. with backwages. Yes. And when all. the respondent union forthwith filed an "Urgent Petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order. The lower court should have ordered the reinstatement of the officials and members of the Unions. d. L-30818 September 28. During the pendency of the unfair labor practice case. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs. and ordered petitioner to cease and desist from further committing such unfair labor practice acts. the decision of the CIR was reversed and set aside.R. and b. Accordingly. their services were terminated as of the close of business hours of March 28. were able to secure and subsequently present the required clearances. Year 3 | UPang . 1972 FACTS: Three appeals by certiorari (L-30755. 1968.

WON the Petitioner's was correct in claiming that the order of the court (as regards L-30139) was prejudicial. WON the Court acted out of its jurisdiction (as regards L-30138) in issuing the appealed payment order of the 70 employees. respondent court issued its order of February 27. 1968 was a separate "Urgent petition with prayer for a restraining order. 1969 for the payment of such gratuity not exceeding 12 months to the remaining 70 employees who have rendered one year to nineteen years of service to petitioner company.00 through its check. docketed as L-30818. ISSUES: 1. it filed another petition which was docketed as L-30139. What the union had actually filed on March 28. Year 3 | UPang . CIR took cognizance of the union's petition and called the parties immediately to a conference. 11 | LABOR RELATIONS – Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran. 1968 of the Pines Hotel and the abrupt termination of all its employees. along with a prayer for an ex-parte restraining order be issued against their abrupt dismissal or termination. 2. Citing the various manifestations in the record of petitioner's willingness to pay such gratuity. No. for the very merit of the union complaint is borne out by the fact that the parties promptly arrived at a satisfactory settlement thereof upon petitioner's undertaking to pay retirement gratuity to all 86 affected employees. No. HELD: 1. who have served for 20 years or more. Manila Hotel’s BoD subsequently approved the payment of retirement gratuity to the greater remainder of 70 employees who had not completed 20 years of service and were not qualified under the Retirement Law.consolidated with the first case. Petitioner once again raised the same questions of jurisdiction and propriety of the CIR’s issuance of said payment order and with its MFR denied. With its appeal denied by CIR. it filed another appeal. it still questioned the issuance of the order on grounds of alleged lack of jurisdiction and impropriety thereof. the court acted within its jurisdiction when it properly assumed of implementing the very agreement and settlement for payment of retirement gratuity arrived at by the parties in the case before it. where Manila Hotel expressly manifested that it was willing to grant retirement gratuity to all the employees. In connection with the same sale on March 28. by way of settlement of their dispute arising from the protested abrupt termination of their employment with the sudden sale of the Pines Hotel to a third party. Notwithstanding petitioner's having deposited with respondent court pursuant to its own offer the sum of P100. As the petitioner has in no manner questioned or disputed the factual bases and findings of CIR as to its undertaking and agreement in the record to pay the retirement gratuity to the employees. expressly referring to 16 out of 86 employees who were terminated. 2." No prejudice could be said to have been caused to petitioner thereby.000.