FINAL EXAMINATION

LABOR RELATIONS
ROCHELLE P. GABLINES

(1)

If I were the Secretary of Labor I would order Savoy Department Store to

reinstate Lina and those other employees whose 5 month term had elapsed to be back to
their position. The law demands that the nature and entirety of the activities performed by
the employee be considered and in this instant case, Lina never even violated any of the
SDS workplace rules and regulations.

Quite the contrary, Lina’s work as a saleslady is far from being specific or
seasonal but rather one according to the code “Where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business’’ and
under the code where one performs such activities the employee shall enjoy security of
tenure. Moreover, security of workers in their job is a fundamental objective of
Philippine Labor laws and it also seeks to eliminate abuses of the employers to their
employees to prevent casuals from enjoying the benefits of a regular position.

(2)

Yes, non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter.

Enshrines under the NLRC rules of Procedure, a non- lawyer may only appear
before the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter if (1) he represents himself as party to the case
(2) he represents a legitimate labor organization which is a party to the case (3) he
represents a member or members of a legitimate labor organization that is existing within
the employers establishment, who are parties to the case (4) he is a duly accredited
member of any legal aid office recognized by the DOJ or IBP and (5) he is the owner or
president of a corporation or establishment which is a party to the case.

Suffice it to state that under Article 228 of the Labor Code, attorney’s fees may be
charged against the union funds in the amount to be agreed upon the parties.

(3)

The automatic renewal clause of Collective Bargaining Agreements requires that

the parties maintain the status quo and continue the term and condition of an expired
CBA until a new agreement is reached.
 (4)

If I were the election officer I will highly suggest to conduct a run-off election
between the labor union receiving the highest number of votes. Provided that, all of the
contending union must have garnered atleast 50% of the votes cast.

In this instant case, there is four (4) contending union which garnered 216 votes
and overall there are 400 votes casted. The votes for no union and spoiled votes are
automatically disregarded. The votes garnered by the union is more than 50% of the
number of votes casted. Hence a run-off election is a proper remedy.

(5)

Under the Philippine Labor Law, the Community Interest Rule, is the interest
shared by a class of people in the community. It also refers to a common grievance that
must be shared by all class members to maintain a class action and an important criterion
used by the NLRB to determine whether a group of employees should be allowed to act
as a bargaining unit.

The principle of co-determination refers to the right of workers to participate in

policy and decision-making processes directly affecting their rights and benefits, without
intruding into matters of management prerogatives.

(6)

The 20 members must be allowed to vote. The contention that the 20 employees
are ineligible to vote is bereft with legal basis. As to how and under what condition does
an employee become a union member depends on the union’s constitution and by-laws.
Under this present case, the intention of the union to allow the additional 20 members is
explicit and therefore must be respected by the employer.

It is noteworthy to mention that an employee’s membership in a union, however,

does not necessarily mean coverage in the collective bargaining agreement. The
Collective bargaining agreement defines its coverage as agreed by the parties. Qualifying
for the membership therefore does not necessarily mean inclusion in the coverage of
CBA.
 (7)

The contention of the Makabayan Company is correct.

Under Article 129, the regional director has no jurisdiction over any claim for
reinstatement or money claims exceeding P5,000.00. Those claims are within the Labor
Arbiters jurisdiction as provided under Article 224. Under which, money claims is only
limited to those arising from status or contacts other than a collective bargaining
agreement.

(8)

Yes the action of NLRC is proper. Section 10 of R.A No. 8042 otherwise known
as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, transfers from the POEA to
the Labor Arbiter the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising
out employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages.

Any appeal raised by the aggrieved party from the labor arbiter’s decision is
already beyond the scope of arbitration, the NLRC merely reviews the Labor Arbiters
decision for errors of facts or law and no longer duplicates the proceedings before the
labor arbiter.

(9)

The decision of the Labor Arbiter is null and void for want of jurisdiction. One
of the immunities of the ADB as an international organization is immunity from the legal
writs and processes issued by the tribunal or commission . It is a recognized principle of
the international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic
immunity is essentially a political question and courts are prohibited to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government.

Hence, in compliance with the well settled principle, courts are compelled to not
render their jurisdiction to avoid embarrassing the executive body of the government in
conducting foreign relations.
 (10)

The order of the Voluntary Arbitrator is not immediately executory . Generally,

the award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator shall be final and executory after 10
calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties. Decisions
or awards of voluntary arbitrations are also appealable to the Court of Appeals.

(11)

No, A’s claim for salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract is not tenable.
As provided under Republic. Act No. 8042, money claims can be made only if there is
dismissal without just or authorized cause which in this instant case has failed to satisfy.

There is a valid ground to dismiss the employment of A. It is an uncontroverted

fact that A, while in the course of his work has failed to strictly adhere the company’s
policy in its prohibition of un-prescribed drugs bearing the proof of its violation is the
positive drug test result that renders his employment severed.

(12)

For dismissal under ‘’just causes” the law requires the employer to furnish the
worker two written notices before terminating his employment (1) notice which apprises
the employee of the particular acts and omission for which his dismissal is sought. (2) a
subsequent notice that informs the employee of the intention of the employer to dismiss
him. Failure to comply with this requirement would constitute the dismissal illegal. The
conduct of hearing is also mandatory as to form part of the employment predetermination
procedure.

For under “authorized causes’’, two notices is required. One to the employee to be
terminated and the other is to the DOLE. Each notice must be served 30 days before the
employee’s separation takes effect.

(13)

Jose’s conduct should not be looked upon with favor. Under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, Jose’s action constitutes serious misconduct and a culpable violation of the
company’s rules and regulation.

Misconduct involves the transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment. For misconduct to be serious and therefore a valid
ground for dismissal, it must be (1) of grave and aggravated character and not merely
 trivial or unimportant and (2) connected with the work of the employee. Hence, the
dismissal of Jose is not devoid of merit.
(14)

To heed the company’s offer in reinstating Bobby back to an unfavourable work

location would be a misplaced recourse for him.

The offer creates a situation where an employee is constrained to quit his job
because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. There is
a demotion in rank, diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or
disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. What bobby should opt for
as his best course of action is to file for constructive dismissal and pray for separation pay
instead of being reinstated back to his position.

(15)

The death benefit claim of Carol’s father will not fail. Under the SSS employee’s
compensation, death or injury sustained by an employee under the principle of “Going to and
coming from rule” his or her place is compensable.

Employers are responsible for covering the employee’s losses from a work-
related injury, including the medical bills and missed time at work. In order to qualify for
worker’s compensation, a work related injury does not necessarily have to happen in the job site.

(16)

The Motion to Dismiss will be sustained. In relation to Section 1 of Book V of the

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, it is the Regional Director of DOLE and not the
BLR who has jurisdiction over election protest. Any complaint in this regard shall be filed in the
Regional office where the union is domiciled.

(17)

Although the constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and

protection of the working class, it does not necessarily follow that every labor dispute
will be automatically decided in favor of labor. X’s contention must fail in this instant
case.

The Labor Code has no specific provision on when a claim for illegal dismissal or
a monetary claim accrues. Thus, the general rule for prescription applies which is four
years for illegal dismissal and three years for money claims. The dismissal of the private
respondent is proper since it is explicit from its import that the action has already
prescribe. X alleged that his date of dismissal is on January 1, 2020 filed on March
29,2004, exactly 4 years and 3 months. He never even denied making such admission.

(18)

In line with the spirit and purpose of the Labor law and social legislation, the
contention that the NLRC-approved compromise agreement be executed even after the
lapse of ten years from its finality must fail because the action is now barred by
prescription. The independent action should have been initiated within 10 years.

In the instant case, the five and ten year period provided by law and the rules are
more than sufficient to enable petitioners to enforce their right under the subject MOA
but still failed to enforce at the reglementary period.

(19)

QFI did not substantially comply with the bond requirement when it failed to post
a cash bond equivalent together the motion to reduce bond.

Under Section 6, Rule 6 of the NLRC Rule of Procedure, all motion to reduce
bond that are filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or
surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which
shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an
appellant’s motion is pending resolution by the Commission. Only after the posting of a
bond in the required percentage shall an appellant’s period to perfect an appeal under the
NLRC rules shall be deemed suspended.

(20)

There was an absence of showing that such termination was due to insidious
machination. The employees contention when the Corporation undertook its “downsizing
program, it may have terminated its employees on either one of two grounds, namely,
redundancy or retrenchment.

For redundancy, there is no requirement of losses, whereas in retrenchment, it is

resorted to primarily to avoid or minimize business losses.

(21)

The advise of the Company’s Legal Counsel that an employer cannot retrench to
prevent losses until actual losses occur was without legitimate basis to proceed.
 Enshrined under Article 283 of the Labor Code, the employer may terminate the
employment of the employee to prevent any losses. The law does not require that
retrenchment can only be done by an employer only after an actual loss occur.

(22)

Star’s claim that its employee’s termination is based on its management

prerogative in assigning its guards is not tenable. Under the instant case, there is no valid
exercise of management prerogative for the conduct of the company runs counter against
the mandate of the labor code against constructive dismissal.

RS cannot be placed in off detail and floating status indefinitely. If it will

last for more than six months, he is officially constructively dismissed and is entitled to
separation benefits.

(23)

The contention of the union is bereft with legal basis. Based on the
foregoing facts of the case, there was an explicit agreement that the employees agreed to
work on Sundays and Holidays which they would be paid additional compensation as
provided by law.

Thus, when the worker failed to report for work when it is agreed that they
should be supposed to be on duty, there was a temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action as a result of an Industrial dispute.

(24)

Under Article 263 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, an assumption order
shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or
lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order.

If one has taken place at the time of the assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the terms and conditions
prevailing before the lockout.

(25)
 Managerial employees refer to those whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which they are employed. They are not
eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.

Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,

effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is
not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment. They shall not be eligible for membership in the Collective bargaining
unit of rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate collective
bargaining units of their own.

Rank and file employees refers to an employees who does not fall under
the definition of managerial and supervisory employees. They form the majority
of the workplace in the organization.