You are on page 1of 3

STATE REGULATIONS ON EE RELATIONSHIP (CASES 1-6)

CASE #1: Any doubt concerning the rights of labor should be resolved in its favor pursuant to the social justice policy.

ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTRACT

Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation vs. Montaño

GR No. 182836 ; October 13, 2009

ISSUE:

 Whether or not an employee can claim benefits pursuant to a provision of a CBA which does not properly define the pertinent terms
connected with his claim?

RULING: We emphasize that bereavement leave and other death benefits are granted to an employee to give aid to, and if possible, lessen the grief of, the
said employee and his family who suffered the loss of a loved one.

Yes. CBA provisions should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. The Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in case of doubt in
the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor. In the same way, the CBA and its provisions should
be interpreted in favor of labor.

CASE #2: REASONABLE BUSINESS NECESSITY

Prerogatives: To fire employees

Basis: To protect its business


Held: Invalid exercise of management prerogatives, for failure of the employer to present any evidence of business necessity other than the general
perception that spouses in the same workplace might adversely affect the business.

Star Paper Corporation, et. al. vs. Simbol, et. al.

GR No. 164774 ; April 12, 2006

ISSUE: Whether or not the policy of an employer in banning spouses from working in the same company a valid exercise of management prerogative?

RULING: Yes, as long as it can be established by the employer that a reasonable business necessity exists to justify the validity of such policy.

CASE #3: the law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.

Revidad, et. al. vs NLRC

GR No. 111105, June 27, 1995

ISSUE: Whether or not AG&P’s temporary layoff or retrenchment of 40% of its employees due to continuing financial losses valid?

RULING: Yes, provided that the requirements of the law have been faithfully met. Retrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees
resorted to by an employer primarily to avoid or minimize business losses.
CASE #4: Dismissal of a dishonest employee is to the best interest not only of management but also of labor. As a measure of self-protection against acts
inimical to its interest, a company has the right to dismiss its erring employees. An employer cannot be compelled to continue in employment an
employee guilty of acts inimical to its interest, justifying loss of confidence in him. The law does not impose unjust situations on either labor or
management.

Mercury Drug Corporation vs. NLRC

ISSUE:

 Whether or not an employer be compelled to reinstate an employee convicted for simple theft because of stealing company property?

CASE #6: 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, this Court will uphold them.

San Miguel Corporation'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-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.