ulp1

V.

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Concept: Art. 247

ART. 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and
procedure for prosecution thereof. - Unfair
labor practices violate the constitutional right
of
workers
and
employees
to
selforganization, 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 labormanagement relations.
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, 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. 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.
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. During the pendency of such
administrative proceeding, the running of the
period of prescription of the criminal offense
herein
penalized
shall
be
considered
interrupted: 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. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980 and later
further amended by Section 19, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Reviewer Labor 2: ULP, Relevant Laws and Cases

B. Unfair
Labor
Practices
Employers: Art. 248, 261

of

Chapter II
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS
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 self-organization;
-very
broad, the examples – what is the er
thinking – hr nec carries unnec wt – these
questions are innocent, but wld have to
depend on the tenor, history
At the same time – it could really be an
innocent thing, what if the ee really
knows that the hr is just trying to avoid
that
(b) To require as a condition of employment
that a person or an employee shall not join a
labor organization or shall withdraw from one
to which he belongs;
(c) To contract out services or functions
being performed by union members
when such will interfere with, restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization;
(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; note even if you initiated it as the er you
cannot do this (the er cant be allowed to
meddle it
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages,
hours of work and other terms and conditions
of employment in order to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor
organization. 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. 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

Ms. Rina Diaz-Samson

blatant and flagrant Economic cause – for the rules of the ers for the use of the pecuniary benefits given to the ees The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. (h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute. Employees Association v. ART. Philippine Marine Officers Guild. authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. Held: Letter to ind ees – is an act of interference for the er to send letters to all ees notifying them to return to work at a time specified therein.The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining agent. associations or partnerships who have actually participated in. (f) To dismiss. 15 SCRA 174 Ms. if only they are blatant. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Insular Life Assurance Co. August 21. – not anymore true – under labor practice. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130. 1981). Accordingly. Relevant Laws and Cases CASES:  Insular Life Assurance Co.. For purposes of this article. violations of a Collective Bargaining Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided. He also warned them that if they failed to return to work by a certain date. or Sir: feather bedding – like lagay (i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. the co refuse to readmit the unionists facing criminal charges. w/the er or his rep urgint he ees to cease union activity  Steam and Navigation v. When the strike was over. that the individual authorization required under Article 242. grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code. Agreement. no lockout . otherwise new ees wld be engaged to perform their jobs. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. company-hired men broke into the picket line. 261. only the officers and agents of corporations. they might be repalaced in their jobs. The Commission. Aside from this. gross and if the nature is for economic cause Note: in relation to no strike.also for economic cause – but (I) it must be gross. discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code. 37 SCRA 244 (Azucena pg 287) The co president sent individual letters to the striking ees urging them to abandon their strike with a promise of free coffee and movies and paid ot. resulting in violence and filing criminal charges against some union officers and members. Rina Diaz-Samson . its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes.ulp2 other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. Ind solicitation of the ees or visiting their homes. flagrant. except those which are gross in character. . gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement.

citing 2 Teller. 248 (A)) Interference with employee organizational rights were found where the superintendent of the employer threatened the employees with cutting their pay increasing rent of the company houses. This “strategy” of the company the court ruled. C. 5119). 14 SCRA 5 (pg 286 Azucena) 2 ees were dismissed for a violation of a company’s rule against fights in the premises or during working hours. said  Visayan Bicyle Manufacturing Co. — The striking employees are entitled to reinstatement.. the employer has hired others to take the place of the strikers and has promised them continued employment (Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) vs. however that said ees . is ULP DENIAL OF MOTION TO EXTEND PERIOD TO FILE ARGUMENTS NOT ABUSE OF DISCRETION. v.. pursuant to its standing rule against such extension. L19778. Relevant Laws and Cases were union officers. VOLUNTARY OFFER: TO RETURN TO WORK WITHOUT ANY CONDITION. if the strike is against an unfair labor practice on its part. Gaz. 371. 19 August 1982 Petitioner er claimed that it could not have committed unfair labor practice in dismissing some of its ees allegedly due to their union activities because the dismissal took place more than four months before the union’s organizational meeting and more than a year Ms. the employer is bound to reinstate the strikers. DISMISSAL BECAUSE OF UNION ACTIVITIES — Facts: Two employees were dismissed for violation of a company rule against fights in the premises or during working hours. 1964. does not constitute abuse of discretion. pp. Rina Diaz-Samson . Micaller. and said dismissed employees bad not figured in similar incidents before or violated company rules in their many years with the company. unless. It was shown that they were provoked to fight because the company wanted to create an apparently lawful for their dismissal.I. where the strike was not the consequence of any unfair labor practice. — The denial by the Court of Industrial Relations of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration. It appears. that said employees. RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO INTERROGATE ITS EMPLOYEES AS TO THEIR UNION AFFILIATION. — Even if the employer hires others to replace the strikers. It appears. v. and the union has not appealed. Inciong. et el. who Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. whether or not. 996-997).. Inciong. or closing the plant if they supported the union and where the employer encouraged the employees to sign a petition repudiating the union ULP Even Before Union is Registered Judric Canning Corporation v. Since in these cases no back wages were awarded. Sec. however. The dismissed ees. REINSTATEMENT OF STRIKING EMPLOYEES. September 30. the strike was the consequence of the employer's unfair labor practice. were provoked into a prearranged fight by two recently hired employees pursuant to a strategy of the company designed to provide an apparently lawful cause for their dismissal. LABOR PRACTICE. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. LABOR DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. who were union officers. 115 SCRA 887 First ULP: Interference (Art. WHEN RELEVANT.  Judric Canning Corp. National Labor Union. in fact. were provoked into a fight by 2 recently hired ees. — A voluntary offer to return to work without any condition is relevant only to the question of payment of back wages in addition to reinstatement. — The rule in this jurisdiction is that subjection by the company of its employees to a series of questioning regarding their membership in the union or their union activities. GR No. constitutes unfair labor practice (Scoty's Department Store vs. in such a way as to hamper the exercise of free choice on their part.R. WHEN EMPLOYER BOUND TO REINSTATE STRIKERS. 52 Off. STRIKES. L-51494.ulp3 Interrogating an ee as to his union affiliation is not per se ULP but circumstances may make it such. had not figured in similar incidents before or violated company rules in their many years w/the company. thereby avoiding paralysis of his business.

prior clearance with the Ministry of Labor is not necessary in this case since private respondents have been employed with the petitioner corporation for less than one (1) year. petitioner corporation prayed for issuance of a temporary restraining order to enforce the writ of execution. indeed. Held: the contention is w/o merit. or coerce employees in their exercise of the right to self-organization" is an unfair labor practice on the pan of the employer. In a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. Rina Diaz-Samson . jobs but were dismissed because of their union activities. or their services were terminated. or their services were terminated. The petitioner denied having locked out the respondents and claimed that respondents abandoned their positions. the questioned order finding the dismissal of the private respondents to be without just cause is not based upon such absence of prior clearance alone. Petitioner's appeal to the Ministry of Labor was dismissed for lack of merit and a writ of execution was issued. after the parties had submitted their respective position papers and a hearing was held. However. CASE AT BAR. restrain. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant. For sure. Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. the private respondents were dismissed. 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. PETITION FOR REVIEW. that respondents did not abandon their Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. In short. OFFER TO PAY SEVERANCE PAY DESPITE POSITION THAT EMPLOYEE ABANDONED WORK.ulp4 before its registration. the petitioner corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice in interfering with the formation of a labor union and retaliating against the employee's exercise of their right to self-organization. dominate. The error of the Regional Director in stating that the dismissal of private respondents was without just cause in view of the absence of prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor is. — Under Section 1. The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and lifted the temporary restraining order. — The petitioner-employer stated that in spite of its position that the private respondents had abandoned their jobs. or coerce employees in their exercise of their right to self – organization” is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer. NOT A CASE OF WHERE PRIOR CLEARANCE NOT REQUIRED BY LABOR CODE IMPLEMENTING RULES. — Under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. including the giving of financial or other support to it. “to interfere with." This is a clear admission of the charge of arbitrary dismissal. "to interfere with. DECISIONS OF MINISTRY OF LABOR. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to initiate. In this particular case. After hearing. dominate. assist or otherwise interfere the formation or administration of any labor organization. mgt contended that it could not commit ULP while there was no union yet. FINDINGS OF FACT MAY NOT BE DISTURBED ON REVIEW. Under Art. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to initiate. As a result. dismissed. DISMISSAL WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. the private respondents were dismissed. they and respondent union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioner with the Ministry of Labor. It held that the Regional Director had found dismissal to be due to respondent's union activities amounting to unfair labor practice. thus Ms. a finding of fact which may not be disturbed and this finding is the basis for the Regional Director's conclusion that respondents were dismissed without valid cause. for why should the petitioner offer to pay what it calls "severance pay'' if the private respondents were not. Rule XIV. is a finding of fact which may not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.” In this particular case. ARBITRARY DISMISSAL. including the giving of financial “or other support to it. — The finding of the respondent Regional Director. it "offered to pay respondent union members severance pay of one (1) month. Said private respondents were allegedly not allowed to report for work due to their union activities in soliciting membership in a union yet to be organized. restrain. or if the petitioner sincerely believed in the righteousness of his stance? Facts: Individual private respondents are employees of petitioner corporation and are members of respondent union. AN ADMISSION OF. because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant. the Labor Regional Director found respondent employees' dismissal without valid cause and ordered petitioner to reinstate them with full backwages. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization. Relevant Laws and Cases INTERFERING WITH FORMATION OF UNION.

without in any way turning down or modifying the increases and high salary adjustments which petitioner saw fit to grant to its Manila office employees. 28 September 1972) Discrimination in Layoff or Dismissal � Even where business conditions justified a layoff of employees. (CUGCO) and CIR. Rina Diaz-Samson . leaving the new owner to go freely about its business.00 for monthly-paid employees to which they were entitled under Republic Act 4180. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. Pines Hotel Employees Association. 47 SCRA 88 Discrimination in Bonus Allocation or Salary Adjustments There is unfair and unjust discrimination in the granting of salary adjustments where the evidence shows that (a) the management paid the employees of the unionized branch. 2 841) INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT. Hence. (b) where salary adjustments were granted to employees of one of its non . RELIEF GRANTED IN INSTANT CASE. G. CLAIM FOR REINSTATEMENT EVIDENCED BY FILING OF INJUNCTION. and was but a proper exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Industrial Peace Act to grant affirmative relief whenever it has adjudged the existence of an unfair labor practice. DISCRIMINATORY GRANTING OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS. Ace Comb Co. whereas 80 regular employees of Pines Hotel were granted only an aggregate salary adjustment of P15. (Manila Hotel Company v. — Where petitioner granted 8 employees at the Manila office a total of P18. and the lifting of picket lines at the Pines Hotel did not extinguish the claim in instant case. Pines Hotel Employees Ass’n. 1965 to June 30.. — It is obvious that Ms. and this is exactly what respondent court has done through its December 5. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. unfair labor practices in the form of discriminatory dismissal were found where only unionists were permanently dismissed while non – unionists were not. Relevant Laws and Cases Relations' order that petitioner distribute the bonus pro rota among all its employees regardless of their place of work.R. it is necessary that the underlying reason for the discharge be established. The union did withdraw its complaint for continued employment of its members despite the sale of the Pines Hotel and it did lift the picket line. L-30818. the fact that the employee is engaged in union activities at the time will not lie against the employer and prevent him from the exercise of his business judgment to discharge an employee for cause. The case itself had to remain for implementation in turn of petitioner's undertaking to pay retirement gratuity to all the 86 Pines Hotel employees who had lost their jobs. DISCRIMINATORY DISTRIBUTION OF CHRISTMAS BONUS. 1968 payment order.  Manila Hotel Co. No. respondent court correctly removed the unfair discrimination by granting the corresponding affirmative relief to the Pines Hotel employees through ordering the payment to them by petitioner of the new minimum monthly salary of P180. 1966.000 in salary adjustments for the fiscal year July 1. and (c) the total salary adjustments given every ten of its unionize employees would not even equal the salary adjustments given one employee in the non – unionized branch. � The fact that a lawful cause for discharge is available is not a defense where the employee is actually discharged because of his union activities. RELIEF GRANTED IN INSTANT CASE.000.00 for the purpose of said settlement and by virtue of which cases pending against MHCo. the CIR's finding petitioner guilty of unfair and unjust discrimination in the granting of salary adjustments. NDA and Resort Hotels Corporation and its officials shall be withdrawn by the Pines Hotel Employees Ass'n. If the discharge is actually motivated by a lawful reason.unionized branches although it was losing in its operations. Test of Discrimination � For the purpose of determining whether or not a discharge is discriminatory. CLAIM NOT EXTINGUISHED BY AGREEMENT IN INSTANT CASE. and such exercise of discretion had no factual basis.. v.000 for the same period. was proper. — The agreement as to the payment of gratuity and/or termination pay to the employees and the resolution to deposit P200. (NLRB v. — Where petitioner was found guilty of discrimination amounting to unfair labor practice in the granting of the 1965 Christmas bonus to the employees of the Manila Hotel the Taal Vista and the Pines Hotel. the Court of Industrial Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. 342 F.ulp5 not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the questioned order. was correct.

vice-president.. CBA. NO DISCRIMINATION COMMITTED IF THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED ARE NOT SIMILARLY SITUATED. — Where no prejudice could be said to have been caused to petitioner by the filing of the unfair labor practice charge by the union counsel with respondent court. accounting and treasury department. PAYMENT ORDER BY CIR TO EMPLOYEES WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE IN L30818. PAYMENT OF GRATUITY DIRECTLY BY THE COURT. 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. all aspects of employment. It appears to have been done in good faith and without ulterior motive. They do not derive and enjoy the benefits under the CBA. Respondent union can not claim that there is grave abuse of discretion by the petitioner in extending the benefits of profit sharing to the non-union employees as they are two (2) groups not similarly situated. Oct. according to its discretion and judgment. There can be no discrimination committed by petitioner thereby as the situation of the union employees are different and distinct from the non-union employees. . 1988 it was agreed that the "bargaining unit" covered by the CBA "consists of all regular or permanent employees.ulp6 its claim that the union members sought no reinstatement has no factual basis in the record. petitioner's claim that the union counsel could not file such unfair labor practice charge directly with the CIR. NOT AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION. Inc. Inc. It is to this class of employees who were excluded in the "bargaining unit" and who do not derive benefits from the CBA that the profit sharing privilege was extended by petitioner. CONFERMENT OF BENEFIT TO NON-UNION MEMBERS. — Respondent court in issuing the appealed payment order to employees with less than 20 years of service was but acting within its jurisdiction properly assumed of implementing the very agreement and settlement for payment of retirement gratuity arrived at by the parties in the case before it. and the other offices of the company — personnel office. v. below the rank of assistant supervisor. PREROGATIVE OF MANAGEMENT TO REGULATE ALL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS. PROFIT SHARING PRIVILEGE. 1985 to April 30. These nonunion employees are not covered by the CBA. 13. Is the act of discrimination amounting to ULP? Held: There can be no discrimination committed by the employer as the situation Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. ISSUE THAT ONLY UNION COUNSEL "FILED UNFAIR" LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE IRRELEVANT WHERE THERE IS SETTLEMENT. Rina Diaz-Samson . There can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated." Also expressly excluded from the term "appropriate bargaining unit" are all regular rank and file employees in the office of the president. The grant by the employer of profit – sharing benefits to the employees outside the bargaining unit falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative. 1989 (pg 279. — Payment of the retirement gratuity to the employees directly through the respondent court from the amount therein deposited by petitioner (and not through the GSIS in accordance with the usual practice) might disregard and not take into account "some accountabilities" and "outstanding obligation" of said employees. — The Court holds that it is the prerogative of management to regulate. Azucena) Issue: Whether the grant by mgt of profitsharing benefits to its ees who are nonunion members is discriminatory against the union members. — Under the CBA between the parties that was in force and effect from May 1. security office. The union precisely sought an injunction against the abrupt termination of its members and claimed that they were entitled to continued employment as guaranteed by their collective bargaining agreement. — Discrimination per se is not unlawful. Employees Union. There can be no discrimination where the employees concerned are not similarly situated. This flows from the established rule that labor law does not Ms. Relevant Laws and Cases of the union employees is different from that of the non-union employees. corporate affairs office. Discrimination per se is not unlawful.  Wise and Co. loses relevance.. EMPLOYMENT. IMPROPER. Wise and Co.

this period could very well be considered as working Ms. It appears to have been done in good faith and without ulterior motive. 289 SCRA 86 (1998) The employer may change the meal break from 30 mins. Hence. the NLRC sustained the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal.M. v. the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for their rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and better performance in their work. In the case of the union members. the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for their rest and comfort.11:45 A. Their Coffee Breaktime was shortened to 10 minutes only and the company discontinued the 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break. 1992. to 3:45 p. there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period. as amended.M. harsh. Rina Diaz-Samson . vindictive or wanton manner or out of malice or spite. The Court held that the right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer.4:45 P. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative and did not have the effect of diminishing the benefits granted to the workers. GRANT OF PROFIT SHARING BENEFITS TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE "BARGAINING UNIT". NLRC. In the instant case petitioner. Inc. WORKING CONDITIONS AND REST PERIODS. — The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. the present petition. It rationalizes that while the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break.  Sime Darby Pilipinas.m. tubes and other rubber products.ulp7 authorize the substitution of the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its business. without pay. WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ITS MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVE. Inc. Since the employees are no longer required to work during this 1-hour lunch break. The new work schedule fully complies with the daily work schedule of eight hours without violating the Labor Code. with a 30-minute paid "on call" lunch break. Aggrieved by the change. — The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to the employees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under the ambit of its managerial prerogative." Even if denominated as lunch break. On appeal.m. With the new work schedule. Both the employer and the union members are bound by such agreement. the union filed on behalf of its members a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice. there is no more Facts: Petitioner Sime Darby Pilipinas. they derive their benefits from the terms and conditions of the CBA contract which constitute the law between the contracting parties. The new prescribed schedule will be 7:45 A. discrimination and evasion of liability.M. the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that period as they were "on call. However. the employees are now given a one-hour undisturbed lunch break. For a full one hour undisturbed lunch break. RIGHT TO FIX WORK SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYEES IS PREROGATIVE OF EMPLOYER. the NLRC reversed its own decision and declared that the new work schedule deprived the employees a 30minute paid lunch break resulting in an unjust diminution of company privileges prohibited by Article 100 of the Labor Code. fully paid to 60 mins.M. upon motion for reconsideration. (Saturday). as the employer. Relevant Laws and Cases monthly salaried employees in its Marikina Tire Plant of a change in work schedule. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. Since the employees are no longer required to work during this one-hour break. On August 14. is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tires. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the NLRC. oppressive. while private respondent Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association is an association of monthly salaried employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory. cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production. petitioner issued a memorandum advising all its Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. All company workers in Marikina including members of the private respondent union worked from 7:45 a. Such management prerogative may be availed of without fear of any liability so long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers' interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under special laws or valid agreement and are not exercised in a malicious. 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. (Monday to Friday) and 7:45 A.

or even as a combination of any or all of these. Noriel 116 SCRA 649 [1982]). what the act is denominated — whether as a restraint. Rina Diaz-Samson . EMPLOYER'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. Labor Code. — In the bargaining process. Employees (like the employees in the case at bar) have a constitutional right to choose their own bargaining representative (Phil. EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. DENOMINATION OF ACT IN COMPLAINT IMMATERIAL. the new schedule applies to all employees in the factory similarly situated whether they are union members or not. 202 SCRA 648 CERTIFICATION ELECTION. there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period. NLRC. Noriel. HAS THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE EMPLOYER. interference or coercion. If it did. — BALMAR. — The purpose of certification election is to give the employees true representation in their Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. FerrerCalleja. BALMAR's pretense that majority of Ms.ulp8 time because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and were paid accordingly for working. considering that the latter has been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of BALMAR rank and file employees. hours of work and all other terms and conditions or employment including proposals for adjusting any grievance or questions arising under such agreement if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession (Art. — Failure on petitioner's part to live up in good faith to the terms of its collective bargaining agreement by denying the privileges and benefits thereof to the fifteen drivers and helpers through its device of trying to pass them off as "employees" of its salesmen and propagandists was a serious violation of petitioner's duty to bargain collectively and constituted unfair labor practice in any language. CASE AT BAR. CIR. as amended). v. either as a matter of procedure or of substantive law. We agree with the Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code. the question is whether the respondent committed the act charged in the complaint.  Alhambra Industries v. shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. In the case at bar. 162 SCRA 246 [1988]) and it is only through certification election that they can obtain this purpose. For a full one-hour undisturbed lunch break. CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. Relevant Laws and Cases collective bargaining with an employer (Confederation of Citizens Labor Union (CCLU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations. because certification election is the most democratic and expeditious method by which the laborers can freely determine the union that shall act as their representative in their dealing with the establishment where they are working (National Association of Free Trade Union v. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages. Besides. EMPLOYER'S DENIAL OF PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY CONSTITUTES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 252. it is the ALU which is the exclusive bargaining representative of BALMAR employees and as such it has the right and duty to bargain collectively with BALMAR. It is the most effective way of determining which labor organization can truly represent the working force (PLUM Federation of Industrial and Agrarian Workers. as some members of the Court believe it to be. With the new work schedule. The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit.  Balmar Farms v. or as refusal to bargain as some other members view it. it is of no consequence. cannot also invoke good faith in refusing to negotiate with ALU. the workers and employer shall be represented by their exclusive bargaining representatives. the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break without interruption from their employer. PURPOSE. Since the employees are no longer required to work during this one-hour break. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) v. 119 SCRA 299 [1982]). or as a discriminatory discharge as other members think it is. the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but also for their rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and better performance in their work. As observed by the Solicitor General. 161 SCRA 246 [1988]). — In unfair labor practice cases. 35 SCRA 550 INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT.

CASE AT BAR. LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. Rina Diaz-Samson . if ably supported by evidence. against his employee's right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment. improper and unjustified. While absence from work for a prolonged period may suggest abandonment in certain instances. all the more sustains the finding of bad faith for it is not for the petitioner BALMAR to question which group is the collective bargaining representative of its rank and file employees. be inferred that BALMAR's refusal to bargain collectively with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor practice. The first act clearly preempts the right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through concerted action. renders its stand on the matter highly suspicious. mere absence of one or two days would not be enough to sustain such a claim. REQUISITES. — For abandonment to arise. It can. — Labor Arbiter Pati accepted hook. . Without doubt. NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. The facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value DISMISSAL. Loss of confidence should ideally apply only to cases involving employees occupying positions to trust and confidence or to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or property. lodging. Loss of confidence should not be simulated in order to justify what would otherwise be. the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not. therefore. NLRC. as amended). The provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee 3. — Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal was never intended to provide employers with a blank check for terminating their employees. Granting that meals and Requirements for deducting value of facilities: 1. . not a mere afterthought to justify. electric consumption and water she received during the period in her computations. in the form of restraint.ulp9 its rank and file employees disaffiliated simply because of a letter it received to that effect. the failure of which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and the employee is entitled to reinstatement. The over act (absence) ought to unerringly point to the fact that the employee has no intention to return to work. line and sinker the private respondent's bare claim that the reason the monetary benefits received by petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than minimum wage was because petitioner did not factor in the meals. Balmar's taking side with the rank and file employee who allegedly disaffiliated. SALARY LESS THAN MINIMUM BECAUSE OF OTHER FACILITIES PROVIDED NOT JUSTIFIED. there must be concurrence of two things: 1) lack of intention to work. CASE AT BAR. together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. An ordinary chambermaid WAGES. under the provisions of law an illegal dismissal. is analogous to the situation envisaged in paragraph (f) of Article 248 of the Labor Code" which distinctly makes it an unfair labor practice "to dismiss.. 271 SCRA 670 (1997) who has to sign out for linen and other hotel property from the property custodian each day and who has to account for each and every towel or bedsheet utilized by the hotel's guests at the end of her shift would not fall under any of these two classes of employees for which loss of confidence. 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. and 2) the presence of overt acts signifying the employee's intention not to work. ABANDONMENT. discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony" under the Labor Code. Relevant Laws and Cases Ms. enumerates unfair labor practices committed by employers. would normally apply. interference or coercion. — In termination cases the employer bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause. BURDEN OF PROOF. It must be genuine. Reviewer Labor 2: ULP.  Mabeza v. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. Article 248 (Labor Code. We agree with the Solicitor General's observation in his manifestation that "[t]his actuation . — The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure. which is patently not the case here. For in not giving positive testimony in favor of her employer. Proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade 2. "It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal. JUST CAUSE. an earlier action taken in bad faith.

On February 1.  De Leon v. an award of One Thousand Pesos (P1. emergency cost of living allowance. and 13th month pay for the periods alleged by the petitioner as the private respondent has never been able to adduce proof that petitioner was paid the aforestated benefits. 2001 An examination of the facts of this case reveals that there is sufficient ground to conclude that respondents were guilty of interfering with the right of petitioners to selforganization which constitutes unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code. 1991. May 30. Moreover. 1988 up to the date of her illegal dismissal. Second. therefore. petitioner is entitled to payment of service incentive leave pay. Finally. FTC. Considering. 6715 and our decision in Osmalik Bustamante. — Petitioner is entitled to the payment of the deficiency in her wages equivalent to the full wage applicable from May 13. Petitioners have remained unemployed since then. the early payslips of petitioners show that their salaries were initially paid by FTC. petitioners formed a union which was later certified as bargaining agent of all the security guards.000. backwages are in order. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. 1988 are barred by prescription as P. allowing the former to return to her job would only subject her to possible harassment and future embarrassment. The records show that the two corporations had identical stockholders and the same business address. On October 15. BACKWAGES. petitioner is entitled to full backwages from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the date of promulgation of this decision without qualification or deduction.. FISI also had no other clients except FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan group of companies. or the electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel. These requirements were not met in the instant case. Owing to the strained relations between petitioner and private respondent. the stockholders of FISI sold all their participation in the corporation to a new set of stockholders which renamed the corporation Magnum Integrated Services. SEPARATION PAY IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT PROPER IN VIEW OF STRAINED RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. the claims covering the period of October 1987 up to the time of filing the case on May 13. the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee's wages. such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Under the circumstances. 8 Petitioners have been employed with FISI since the 1980s and have since been posted at the premises of FTC — its main factory plant. Pursuant to R. — In addition to separation pay. the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. night differential pay. In the instant case. 442 (as amended) and its implementing rules limit all money claims arising out of employeremployee relationship to three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrues. First. et al vs. This resulted in the displacement of petitioners. facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. the dismissal of petitioner without the benefit of notice and hearing prior to her termination violated her constitutional right to due process. the food and lodging. PROPER MONETARY AWARD IN CASE AT BAR. As MISI had no other clients. lodging) but the purpose. was a mere instrumentality of FTC. NLRC. Relevant Laws and Cases separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of continuous service with the private respondent would be proper. while having its own corporate identity.00) on top of payment of the deficiency in wages and benefits for the period aforestated would be proper. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. However.A. it failed to give new assignments to petitioners. Also. Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. It appears from the records that FISI. Additionally. Inc. its tobacco redrying plant and warehouse. All these Ms. proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. starting with her job at the Belfront Hotel. More significantly. Rina Diaz-Samson . without any reason. — We depart from the settled rule that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work normally should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.D. 9 To enforce their rightful benefits under the laws on Labor Standards.ulp10 lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities. Without satisfying these requirements. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind (food. 1991. that hotel workers are required to work different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours. MONEY CLAIMS. preterminated its contract of security services with MISI and contracted two other agencies to provide security services for its premises. National Labor Relations Commission. such as the private respondent's hotel. tasked to provide protection and security in the company premises.

or (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. and FISI provided security services only to FTC and other companies belonging to the Lucio Tan group of companies. records show that FISI and FTC have the same owners and business address. by virtue of a contract for security services. merge them into one. . protect fraud or defend crime. (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee. 249... Ltd. justify wrong. or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer. the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons. members of governing boards. (d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value. B. Employees AssociationNATU vs.: 10 "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of section (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. only the officers. provided it is the representative of the employees. the Court cannot allow FTC to use its separate corporate personality to shield itself from liability for illegal acts committed against its employees. The purported sale of the shares of the former stockholders to a new set of stockholders who changed the name of the corporation to Magnum Integrated Services. Rina Diaz-Samson . FISI. Ltd. authorized Ms. appears to be part of a scheme to terminate the services of FISI's security guards posted at the premises of FTC and bust their newly-organized union which was then beginning to become active in Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. in the nature of an exaction. However. However. The Court held in Insular Life Assurance Co. its officers. It is a fundamental principle in corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it is connected. (c) To violate the duty. including the demand for fee for union negotiations. or in case of two corporations. The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding. a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership. 249 ART.It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization." 11 We are not persuaded by the argument of respondent FTC denying the presence of an employer-employee relationship. provided FTC with security guards to safeguard its premises. Insular Life Assurance Co. it was shown that FISI was a mere adjunct of FTC. However. Under these circumstances. 12 In the case at bar. The separate juridical personality of a corporation may also be disregarded when such corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of another person. when the concept of separate legal entity is used to defeat public convenience. agents or representatives: (a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. We find that the Labor Arbiter correctly applied the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to hold all respondents liable for unfair labor practice and illegal termination of petitioners' employment. 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.. for services which are not performed or not to be performed. Relevant Laws and Cases demanding the company's compliance with Labor Standards laws. and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in. Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations: Art. Inc.ulp11 facts indicate a concerted effort on the part of respondents to remove petitioners from the company and thus abate the growth of the union and block its actions to enforce their demands in accordance with the Labor Standards laws. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. (e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute.

and dismissed him from the service. an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership. the company was not guilty of unfair labor practice. Needless to say. Employee complained of illegal dismissal. Under the circumstances. 721. STATE MAY NOT COMPEL THEM TO ADMIT ANY INDIVIDUAL AS MEMBER. the company notified the union that it would not take any action on the case and would consider petitioner still a member of the union. — In the case at bar. Williams vs. a union shop. or as regards a particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement (31 Am. either in a given locality. CIR. FOR THE RULE. without any reasonable ground thereof. RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE DISMISSED FROM SERVICE DUE TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. Besides. because membership therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege (4 Am. 21 SCRA 216 (1967) Employee resigned from the union. International Brotherhood of Boiler-Makers. 1981). 462. 27 Cal. insisted on petitioner's discharge. Having been dismissed from service owing to unfair labor practice on the part on the part of the union. 426). (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130. which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. The union requested the company to enforce the closed shop provision of the CBA. or maintenance of membership clauses cause the administration of discipline by unions to be Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. 329). or a union in insisting upon the discharge of. a state may not compel ordinary voluntary associations to admit thereto any given individual. Relevant Laws and Cases affected with public interest (Labor Law Cases and Materials. 432).  Salunga v. invoke the rights of those who seek admission for the first time. — The reason is that "the closed shop and the union shop cause the admission requirements of trade unions to become affected with public interest. — Although. 2d. August 21. — Ms. 155 P. Likewise a closed shop. without any reasonable ground therefor (31 Am. as the union reiterated its demand. 2d. Company deferred action and informed the employee of the possible effects of his resignation from the union. petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member of the union and to his former or substantially equivalent position in the company. Company finally granted the request of the union and terminated the employee. It was reluctantif not unwilling-to discharge petitioner. When the latter. EXCEPTION. if said unions may be compelled to admit new members. 586. 25 Cal. the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor. the company advised petitioner of its provisions. 31 Am. with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power when the employee involved is a long standing union member who. was impelled to tender his resignation. Jur. he may at least. 165 P. the company was not "unfair" to petitioner. 1009-1011. — It is well settled that such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership. Jur. Employee tried to revoke his resignation from the union but this denied by the union. and cannot arbitrarily be denied readmission. 903. UNIONS MAY NOT ARBITRARILY EXCLUDE QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FOR MEMBERSHIP. springing from the belief that petitioner had resigned from the union without realizing its effect upon his employment. James vs. without prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges. Surely. Jur. And. pp. 2d. owing to provocations of union officers. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 432). an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership.ulp12 or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable. who have the requisite qualifications. the company notified petitioner that it had no other alternative but to terminate his employment.. the company still demurred and explained it was not taking sides and that its stand was prompted merely by "humane" considerations. Marineship Corp. although with "regret". 2d. generally. or a union in insisting upon the discharge of. thereby intimating that he had to withdraw his resignation in order to keep his employment. thereafter. and with back pay VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS. Held: Labor unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership and a closed – shop provision will not justify the employer in discharging. and a closed -shop provision would not justify the employer in discharging. Jur. Rina Diaz-Samson . Archibal Cox. when the union first informed it of petitioner's resignation and urged implementation of Section 3 of the bargaining contract. WHERE COMPANY WAS NOT GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.

however. for collective bargaining purposes as regards wages. Without need of certification. By their very act of participating in the election. 26 SCRA 435 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. under such circumstances. MINOR UNION MAY NOT DEMAND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. too. Those who voted in the consent election against the labor union that was eventually certified are hidebound to the results thereof. voice out and seek remedies for the grievances of all Sulo employees. the right to be exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union "designated or selected" for such purpose "by the majority of the employees" in the unit concerned.. . In the exercise of its sound judgment and discretion. — The outcome of a consent election cannot be rendered meaningless by a minority group of employees who had themselves invoked the procedure to settle the dispute. October 4. SELU defeated the Union.ulp13 Having been dismissed from the service owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of the union. Not controverted." MINORITY GROUP BOUND BY RESULTS OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION. conclude a collective bargaining agreement with Sulo. Because of this SELU was certified to the Sulo management as the "collective bargaining representative of the employees . is the fact that. they are deemed to have acquiesced to whatever is the consequence of the election." UNION LOST ITS RIGHT TO STRIKE AND PICKET BY ITS DEFEAT IN CONSENT ELECTION. petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as member of the union and to his former or substantially equivalent position in the company. hours of work. the issue as to the propriety of the injunction issued to restrain picketing has become moot and academic. hours of employment or other conditions of employment. it could. it might have been true that the Union commanded a majority of Sulo's employees. including employees who are members of petitioner Union. without prejudice to his seniority and/or rights and privileges and with back pay. But it is not disputed that on. That election occurred during the pendency before this Court of this original petition for certiorari lodged by the Union the thrust of which is to challenge the power of the Court of First Instance to enjoin its picketing activities. from the sums due to the union by way of check off or otherwise. which back pay shall be borne exclusively by the union. i. including the power to authorize the company to make deductions for petitioner's benefit. 1965. Torres. a consent election was held. rates of pay and/or such other terms and conditions of employment allowed them by law. a minority union can no longer demand collective bargaining. in that consent election. — The Union's right to strike and consequently to picket ceased by its defeat in the consent election. 1965.  United Restauror’s Employees and Labor Union v. take such measures as it may deem best. Said right properly belongs to SELU. ISSUE AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PICKETING IS MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — The Union which has become Reviewer Labor 2: ULP. As to those who did not participate in the election. regarding the "rates of pay. Logic is with this view. the accepted theory is that they "are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting. — When the Union struck and picketed on January 16. Rina Diaz-Samson ." Under the circumstances. shortly after this case was filed on September 18. the lower court may.e. which commands the majority. petitioner herein. . wages. 1965. The Union may not continue to picket. By law. SELU has the right as well as the obligation to hear. Relevant Laws and Cases Ms.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.