Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Social Justice
Police Power
Right to Self-Organization
Franklin Baker Co. vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 75039, January 28,
1988
Pan American World Airways Inc. vs. Pan American EU, G.R.
No. L-25094, April 29, 1969, En Banc
Labor Organizations
San Miguel Corporation Employees Union (PTGWO) vs. San
Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union (PDMP), G.R.
No. 171153, September 12, 2007
Purpose
Run-Off Elections
No Direct Certification
Unorganized Establishment
Registration
Substitutionary doctrine
Collective Bargaining
Definition
Duty to Bargain
Nature
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-54334, January 22, 1986
If the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulation shall prevail. In fine, the CBA must be strictly
adhered to and respected if its ends have to be achieved,
being the law between the parties. The provisions of the
CBA must be respected since its terms and conditions
constitute the law between the parties. The parties cannot
be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on the
ground that the same are not favorable to them.
If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, as in the herein
questioned provision, the literal meaning thereof shall
prevail. That is settled. As such, the daily-paid employees
must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays which are
so declared by the national government, regardless of
whether they fall on rest days. Holiday pay is a legislated
benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that
the State shall afford protection to labor. Its purpose is not
merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the
workers on account of work interruptions. In other words,
although the worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what
he should earn, that is, his holiday pay."
The CBA is the law between the parties, hence, they are
obliged to comply with its provisions. Indeed, if petitioner
and respondents intended the provision in question to cover
payment only during holidays falling on work or weekdays, it
should have been so incorporated therein. RFM maintains,
however, that the parties failed to foresee a situation where
the special holiday would fall on a rest day. The Court is not
persuaded. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case
of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision
affecting labor, it should be interpreted in favor of labor.
Duration of Agreement
Effect of Expiry
New Pacific Timber Supply Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124224,
march 17, 2000
It is clear from Art. 253 that until a new CBA has been
executed by and between the parties; they are duly bound
to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. In
the case at bar, no new agreement was entered between
the parties pending appeal of the decision in the NLRC.
Consequently, the employees from to the year 1985 (after
expiration of the CBA) onwards would be deprived of a
substantial amount of monetary benefits if the terms and
conditions of the CBA were not to remain in force and effect
which runs counter to the intent of the Labor Cod to curb
labor unrest and promote industrial peace.
Contract Beneficiaries
New Pacific Timber Supply Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124224,
March 17, 2000
Grievance Machinery
Grievance Issues
Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs. Brillantes, G.R.
No.123782, September 16, 1997
Art. 217 of the labor code provides that labor arbiters are
required to refer cases involving the implementation of CBAs
to the grievance machinery provided therein and to
voluntary arbitration.
Company Union
Mandatory nature
CCBPI Postmix Workers Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114521,
November 27, 1998 and Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 123491, November 27, 1998
The language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the
cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the
strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory. The
cooling-off period must be observed as it is the requisite
number of days from the mandatory filing of the Notice of
Strike, before the lapse of which, the union may not strike.
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the
workers constitutional right to strike. The section provides in
part, viz.: When in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for
compulsory arbitration. . . . The foregoing article clearly
does not interfere with the workers right to strike but
merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such right,
national interests will be affected. The rights granted by the
Constitution are not absolute. They are still subject to
control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised
arbitrarily. The interests of both the employers and
employees are intended to be protected and not one of
them is given undue preference.
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE
Proportionality Rule
The Court agrees with the NLRC that the acts of private
respondent are not so serious as to warrant the extreme
penalty of dismissal. Private respondent was accused of
hitting the victim once with the blunt side of a bolo. Private
respondent could have attacked him with the blade of the
weapon, and he could have struck him several times. But he
did not, thus negating any intent on his part to inflict fatal
injuries. In fact, the victim merely sustained a minor
abrasion and has since forgiven and reconciled with the
private respondent. If the party most aggrievednamely,
the foremanhas already forgiven the private respondent,
then petitioner cannot be more harsh and condemning than
the victim. Besides, no criminal or civil action has been
instituted against private respondent. Furthermore, in his
twenty years of service in the company, he has not been
charged with any similar misconduct.
Transfer of Employees
Grant Bonus
Marital discrimination
Post-employment ban
Preventive Suspension
Termination of Employment
Security of Tenure
Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 145417, December 11, 2003
As a probationary employee, enjoyed only temporary
employment status. In general terms, this meant that he
was terminable anytime, permanent employment not having
been attained in the meantime. The employer could well
decide he no longer needed the probationary employees
services or his performance fell short of expectations, etc. As
long as the termination was made before the expiration of
the six-month probationary period, the employer was well
within his rights to sever the employer-employee
relationship. A contrary interpretation would defect the clear
meaning of the term probationary. In this case, respondent
Shemberg had good reason to terminate petitioners
employment and that was his dishonesty.
Espina, et. al., vs. CA, G.R. No. 164582, March 28, 2007
Kinds of employment
Bernardo, et. al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999
Regular employment
By probationary employment
Casual employment
Conti vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119253, April 10, 1997
Seasonal employment
Requisites to attain regular employment
Project employment
Indicators of project employment
Work Pool
Maraguinot, et. al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 120969, January 22,
1998
Citing Lao vs. NLRC, the court held that a work pool may
exist although the workers in the pool do not receive salaries
and are free to seek other employment during temporary
breaks in the business, provided that the workers shall be
available when called to report for a project. Although
primarily applicable to regular seasonal workers, this setup
can likewise be applied to project workers in so far as the
effect of temporary cessation of work is concerned.
Once a project or work pool employee has been (a)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the
same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; (b)
these tasks are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the
usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee
must be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article 280
of the Labor Code and jurisprudence.
Magcalas, et. al. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 100333, March 13, 1997
Termination
The two kinds of regular employees under the law are (1)
those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and
(2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one
year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect
to the activities in which they are employed. The primary
standard to determine a regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the business or
trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer. If the employee has been performing the
job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of
that activity to the business of the employer. Hence, the
employment is also considered regular, but only with respect
to such activity and while such activity exists. The law does
not provide the qualification that the employee must first be
issued a regular appointment or must be declared as such
before he can acquire a regular employee status.
Sexual Harassment
Excessive Absences
Del Monte Phils., Inc., vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 153477, March
6, 2007
The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals found
that petitioners unauthorized absences and repeated
infractions of company rules on employee discipline manifest
gross and habitual neglect of duty that merited the
imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal from work.
Serious misconduct is said to be a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. Oddly,
petitioner never advanced any valid reason to justify his
absences.
Abandonment of duties
P.J. Lhuillier Inc., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158758, April 29, 2005
Analogous causes
Redundancy
Asian Alcohol Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 131108, March
25, 1999
Retrenchment
Eastridge Golf Club, Inc., vs. Eastridge Golf Club, Inc., Labor
Union-Super, G.R. No. 166760, August 22, 2008
Disease or illness
Crayons Processing, Inc., vs. Pula, G.R. No. 167727, July 30,
2007
Twin-Notice Rule
IBM Philippines vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 117221, April 13, 1999
Administrative Hearing
Asian Terminals, Inc., vs. Marbella, G.R. No. 149074, August
10, 2006
The requisites of a valid dismissal for just causes are: (a) the
dismissal must be for one of the causes stated in Article 282
of the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must have been
accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to
be heard and defend himself.
Development of Doctrines
Constructive dismissal
SUBMITTED TO:
ATTY. AGNES ALEXIS LUCERO-DE
GRANO
SUBMITTED BY: