Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right To Self-Organization
Right To Self-Organization
FACTS
resignation from the Union. However, because of the closed shop agreement the factory
expressed petitioner would be dismissed if it would not have a compromise with the
union.
ISSUE
WON RA No. 3350 excluding employees belonging to religious sects from joining
RULING
NO. The Constitution and the Industrial Peace Act recognizes the right to form
and join labor unions, and this includes the right to not join. However, this right is not
applicable when there is a closed shop agreement between the company and the union.
However, Republic Act No. 3350 provides for an exception against the close shop
agreement, particularly employees who are members of religious sects that cannot be
In the case at bar, nothing in RA No. 3350 violates the freedom of association.
What the law provides is that employees who are members of religious sect cannot be
compelled to join labor unions in spite of the closed shop agreement, and that said
employees cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.
FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE CRESENCIO
B. TRAJANO
G.R. No. 75039, 28, January, 1988, FIRST DIVISION, (Paras, J.)
person possesses authority to act in the interest of his employer in the matter
specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code and Section 1 (m) of its
implementing Rules and whether such authority is not merely routinary or clerical
FACTS
certification election. It alleges that petitioner had in its employ 90 regular technical and
official employees, separate from the rank and file employees and is excluded from the
CBA. Petitioner argues that 74 of the 90 employees are managerial employees while 2
members are confidential employees, hence they must be excluded from the
ISSUE
RULING
lay down and execute management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall
and discharge, assign and discipline employees, or to effectively recommend such
managerial actions. In the case at bar, the respondents, as their ultimate power, may
only recommend the hiring and firing, or as the case may be, rests upon the plant
personnel manager. Also the powers exercised by the respondents are subject to
evaluation, review, and final action by department heads and other high executives,
required by law in order to qualify the test of supervisory and managerial status.
Otherwise stated, respondents are not managerial employees, since they do not
participate in policy making but are given ready policies to execute and standard
In Victoriano and Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union, the Court recognized the
right of the members of the INC sect not to join a labor union for being contrary
to their religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their
own union.
FACTS
The CBA between petitioner and respondent company was about to expire. NEW
ULO which is the new labor union composed of employees belonging to the INC sect
filed a certification election. In the end, petitioner was able to negotiate a new 3 year
CBA, however he assailed the petition for certification election by NEW ULO for being
ISSUE
WON NEW ULO was an invalid labor organization for being mostly composed of
INC believers.
RULING
NO. In Victoriano and Elizalde Rope Worker’s Union, the Court recognized the
right of the members of the INC sect not to join a labor union for being contrary to their
religious beliefs, does not bar the members of that sect from forming their own union.
The fact that petitioner was able to negotiate a new CBA with the company does not
foreclose the right of the rival union NEW ULO to challenge petitioner’s claim to majority
status.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LABOR UNION-FFW et al v. DIRECTOR OF LAND
The union’s constitution and by-laws govern the relationship between and
among its members. As in the interpretation of contracts, if the terms are clear
and leave no doubt, as to the intention of parties, the literal meaning of the
FACTS
Respondent Oscar Pili was dismissed from his work for non-disclosure in his job
application form that he had a relative in the company which is in violation of company
is entitled to financial aid from the compulsory contributions of the members of the
union. Petitioner-union argues that Oscar is not entitled to the financial aid since it was
reasonable cause, and that the union has the prerogative to determine what constituted
ISSUE
self-executory. The nature of the contributions, being compulsory and it is for mutual
aid, indicates that individual pay roll authorizations is not necessary. Thus, petitioner
Also, the grant of financial aid to Oscar Pili does not amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The union constitution is a covenant between the union and its members
and among the members. But the constitution leaves no legal interpretation of terms
unilaterally to the union or its officers or even general membership. Thus, since there
reasonable cause or not, it was appropriate for the court to take cognizance of the duty
therefor, they are entitled to the rights of all workers to organization, collective
FACTS
Respondent labor union filed for a certification election. Petitioner countered the
petition since the members of the labor union member-consumer of the Cooperative
and at the same time, composed of the General Assembly and pursuant to the by-laws,
the same is also the final arbiter of any dispute arising from the Cooperative.
ISSUE
RULING
NO. Pursuant to a number of decided cases by the Court, employees who are
collective bargaining.
Thus, rank and file employees of petitioner who are not its members-consumer
COMMISSION et al.
A labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union to form a local or
independent union only during the 60-day freedom period immediately preceding
the expiration of the CBA. Even before the onset of the freedom period, and
despite the closed-shop provision in the CBA between the mother union and
management, disaffiliation may still be carried out, but such disaffiliation must be
effected by a majority of its members in the bargaining unit. The CBA continues
to bind the members of the new disaffiliated and independent up to the expiration
of the CBA.
FACTS
organized the AWUM, which is alleged by the respondent employees to be the local
chapter of AWU without its permission. The said organization was composed of the rank
and file employees of the company. AWU moved for the removal of the employees
because such acts constitutes loyalty against the labor union. However, respondent
argues that the respondent employees have the right to organize themselves into a
local chapter, and that such formation is considered a protected activity and should not
be considered disloyalty.
ISSUE
WON the formation of the AWUM is valid?
RULING
NO. While it is true that AWUM, as a labor union, is free to serve the interest of
its members, and enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right to disaffiliate may be
In the case at bar, respondents did not show that they disaffiliated during the
freedom period. What the record shows is that only 11 out of the whole number of
employees have disaffiliated from the petitioner union. Petitioner then failed to muster
FACTS
Respondent Union entered into a new CBA with respondent Company. The
President of the Union submitted the ratification of the CBA and allowed the Company
to deduct union dues by way of special assessment. The Authorization and the CBA
ratification was obtained through a secret referendum out of separate local membership
meetings. Some of the members of the Union expressed their withdrawal from
authorizing the Company to deduct any amount from their CBA Lump Sum. Petitioner
assailed the 10% special assessment as a violation of Article 241 (o) and Article 222 (b)
ISSUE
RULING
YES. Failure of the Union to comply strictly with the requirements stated by law
view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of the union
members. Their express consent is required and this consent must be obtained in
Both Article 241 (n) and (o) apply to the case at bar. In the case at bar, the Union
separate occasions on different dates, and at various venues contrary to the express
requirement that there must be a general membership meeting. Respondent Union only
submitted only the minutes of the local membership when what was required was a
written resolution adopted at the general meeting. As it is clear that the Union did not
comply with the requirements stated in Article 421 (n), there is no valid levy of the
special assessment
written authorization duly signed every employee in order that a special assessment
may be validly checked off. In the case at bar, the withdrawal of the individual
likewise invalid.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE PURA FERRER-CALLEJA
of all or less than all of the entire body of employees which the collective interest
of all employees, consistent with the equity of the employer, indicate to be the
best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
FACTS
before the Bureau of Labor Relations a petition to conduct certification election. All UP
the petition and prayed that in order for the certification election to pursue, the
appropriate organizational unit must first be defined. Respondent Director Calleja stated
that there is an appropriate organization unit must embrace all regular and rank and file
exclude from the organizational unit those professors occupying the position of
Assistant Professor as they are considered high level employees involved in policy
making, and managerial matters. Calleja then promulgated the decision stating the
those professors occupying the position of Assistant Professor and above are not high-
level employees, since the policy making powers that they possess are only limited to
academic matters
ISSUE
employees?
2. WON the assailed teachers should comprise of a CBU distinct from the non-
academic employees?
RULING
NO. As held in Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano, it was held
managerial employee, must not only be effective, but the exercise of such authority
should not be merely of a routinary or clerical nature, but should require the use of
independent judgement. In the case at bar, said professors form part of the Academic
Personnel Committee which is tasked with formulating policies, rules and standards,
recommendatory powers are subject to evaluation, review and final action by the
department heads and other higher executives, which indicates the lack of exercise of
independent judgement. Thus, they are not high-level employees, but rank and file
employees.
YES. Citing Democratic Labor Association v. Cebu Stevedoring Company Inc, it
was held that there are four factors in determining the proper constituency of a
bargaining unit: (1) Will of the employees; (2) Affinity of unit of employee’s interest such
conditions; (3) prior collective bargaining history; (4) employment status, such as
temporary, seasonal and probationary employees. Furthermore, in the same case, the
In the case at bar, it is clear that one group is composed of employees whose
function are non-academic, i.e. janitors, messengers, typists, clerks, receptionists, etc,.
and the other group is composed of those performing academic functions like full
professors, associate professors, assistant professor. It is clear from the foregoing that
little mutuality on interest can be found from both groups which could justify the
formation of a single collective bargaining unit. The dichotomy between interest suggest
ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the end of each period. The rule must
or without cause, it certainly may not, however be terminated for an illegal cause
FACTS
Private respondents, members of the PLMFO Union, were full time instructors of
against them by petitioner with a statement that their contracts will not be renewed.
When the complaint reached the Public Sector Labor Management Council (PSLMC),
the latter decided that petitioner committed illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
Upon reaching the CSC, the Commission affirmed that PLM is guilty of illegal dismissal.
Petitioner then argues that CSC violated the due process when it adopted entirely the
findings of the PSLMC without according the opportunity to be heard. In addition
petitioner states that since the PSLMC and CSC are both perfoming quasi-judicial
actions, they only acquire original jurisdiction over certain issues, the PSLMC over ULP
ISSUE
WON the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion when adopting the rulings of
the PSLMC?
RULING
NO. The two supposed independent issues, ULP and illegal dismissal are in fact
true, is ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the end of each period. The rule must
From the findings of the PSLMC, while there is merit that employees who hold a
temporary contract may not expect a renewal of appointment, as a matter of right, the
decision being management prerogative. However, when the exercise of such privilege
unions, and such allegations is supported by evidence the acts needs to be examined
and studied.
METROLAB INDUSTRIES v. HONORABLE MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR et
al.
assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters
of, persons who exercise managerial function in the field of labor relations. As
FACTS
The CBA between respondent Union and petitioner have expired. In the
negotiations in the new CBA, it ended in a deadlock between the two parties. In 1992,
the parties entered into a new CBA. However, respondent Labor Secretary took
cognizance of the case and declared that executive secretaries are excluded from the
closed-shop provision of the CBA, and not from the bargaining unit.
ISSUE
WON the executive secretaries are excluded both from the bargaining unit and
RULING
YES. Based from jurisprudence, Article 245 of the Labor Code extends the
prohibition of joining, forming and assisting labor organizations not only to managerial
employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly classified records. If
these employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter may not be
assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evidence conflict of interest. The danger
employees to the Union, as forming part of the bargaining unit can also give rise to
No provision of law makes the ER directly liable for the payment to the
labor organization of union dues and assessments that the former fails to deduct
from its EE’s salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off stipulation The ER’s
commitment for which it may incur unfair labor practice. But it does not by that
omission, incur liability to the union for the aggregate dues or assessment
uncollected from the union members or agency fees for non-union employees
FACTS
respondent union KAMAPI. While there was a union to union conflict, petitioner stopped
deducting from the salaries and wages of its employees the corresponding special
assessment and union dues. Petitioner argues that that it could not comply with the
check-off provisions in the CBA for respondent unions failure to submit on every 8 th day
of the month a list of EEs from whom union dues are the corresponding agency fees
were to be deducted.
ISSUE
WON petitioner College is liable to pay the Union the amounts it failed to deduct
RULING
NO. A check off is a process or device whereby the ER, on agreement with the
authorization from its EEs, deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter’s wages
No provision of law makes the ER directly liable for the payment to the labor
organization of union dues and assessments that the former fails to deduct from its EE’s
salaries and wages pursuant to a check-off stipulation The ER’s failure to make the
may incur unfair labor practice. But it does not by that omission, incur liability to the
union for the aggregate dues or assessment uncollected from the union members or
Moreso, check-offs in truth impose an additional burden on the ER. But the
obligation to pay union dues and agency fees obviously devolves not upon the ER but
the individual EE. It is a personal obligation not demandable from the ER upon default
or refusal of the EE to consent to a check off. The only obligation of the ER under a
check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the collections to the union.
Hence, in the case at bar petitioner College cannot be faulted to be liable to pay
for the union dues and special assessments, and agency fees that it had failed to
deduct from its EEs salaries on its defense that respondent Union failed to submit to the
College on every 8th day a list of EEs from whose pay union dues and the
FACTS
petitioner argued that respondent’s petition should not be granted as they are not
considered a legitimate labor organization as of the date of filing, and that the union was
ISSUE
WON the respondent union was a legitimate labor union?
RULING
collective bargaining. Moreover, pursuant to Article 245 of the Labor Code, a labor
organization composed of both rank and file and supervisory employee is no labor
valid labor organization, it cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a certification election for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
In the case at bar, some of the members of the union occupy a level five position
in the company which consists of overseeing the production of new models but also
determine the man power requirements, thereby influencing important hiring decisions
at the highest levels. This determination is neither clerical but involves independent
judgement. The use of independent judgement in making the decision to hire, fire and
employee’s loyalties are torn between the interests of the union and the interest of the
management.
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PIZZA HUT v. HONORABLE
organization. It begins, to possess all of the rights and privileges granted by law
to such organizations. As such rights and privileges ultimately affect areas which
associations, and unions are engaged directly affect the public interest and
in order.
FACTS
Respondent Union filed a PCE in behalf of its rank and file employees of the
against the PCE of the respondent Union, on the grounds that the Union’s registration
was tainted with false, forged and that the date of the charter certificate was falsified.
Respondent Union argues that once a labor organization has filed the necessary
documents and papers and the same has been certified under oath and attested to, the
ISSUE
WON after the necessary papers and documents have been filed by a labor
RULING
NO. Pursuant to Article 234, the requirements embodied therein are intended as
specifically afford a measure of protection to unsuspecting EEs who may be lured into
joining unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds
or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends. Such requirements are a valid
exercise of police power. Moreover, Article 235 the thirty period ensures that any action
taken by the BLR is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code, which, it
bears emphasis, specifically requires that the basis for the issuance of a certificate of
registration should be in compliance with the requirements for recognition under Article
234. From the foregoing provisions, recognition of a labor union or labor organization is
G.R. No. 110399, 15, August, 1997, SECOND DIVISION, (Romero, J.)
policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative and both
confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor
FACTS
Petitioner union filed before DOLE for a petition of Certification election among
the supervisors and exempt employees from the Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis
branches, which was granted. On appeal, respondent Company argued that grouping
the 3 branches into one bargaining unit was an error since it included employees who
ISSUE
WON the employees involved in the unified bargaining unit was a confidential
employee?
RULING
NO. Under the confidential employee rule, employees who in the normal course
of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations should
decided cases, the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist, or join labor
confidential employee rule is the employee’s need to use labor relations information.
do not belong to such class, because the confidential information handled by these
business which by no means is near within the context of labor relations. Also,
assuming that an employee has access to confidential labor relations information, but
such is merely incidental to his duties and knowledge thereof is not necessary in the
performance of such duties, said access does not render an employee a confidential
employee. Furthermore, even assuming that they are confidential employees, there is
unit, the Court affirms the argument of petitioner. A unit to be considered appropriate
must have substantial mutual interest in wage hours, working conditions, etc. In the
case at bar, the questioned employees have a community or mutuality of interest which
LEONARDO QUISUMBING et al
G.R. No. 127598, 27, January, 1999, FIRST DIVISION, (Martinez, J.)
Confidential EEs do not share the same community of interest that might
FACTS
MEWA (Union) is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file EEs
of petitioner MERALCO. The Union expressed its intention of re-negotiate the terms and
conditions of their existing CBA. The parties reached a deadlock. Petitioner argues that
the inclusion of certain employees should not be allowed because they are considered
as confidential EEs.
ISSUE
RULING
YES. Pursuant to the ruling in Pier 8 Arrastre v. Confesor, and General Maritime
and Stevedores Union, confidential EEs do not share the same community of interest
that might otherwise make him eligible to join his rank-and-file co-workers, because of a
G.R. No. 106518, 11, March, 1999, THIRD DIVISION, (Purisima, J.)
authorization from its employees, deducts union dues or agency fees from the
latter’s wages and remits them directly to the union. Its desirability in a labor
FACTS
The Union and respondent Company signed and concluded a CBA, which
included a check-off of 10% of the total sum of all salary increases and signing bonuses
of the employees in order to cover the expenses of the Union. Petitioner Union
Members argues that the special assessment of 10% must be declared illegal as it
failed to conform with Article 241, paragraph (g, n, o), and their Constitution and by-
laws.
ISSUE
RULING
NO. Article 241 speaks of three requisites that must be complied with in order for
of the majority of all members at the general membership meeting called for that
purpose; (2) secretary’s record of the minutes of the meeting; (3) individual written
In the case at bar, the Court concludes that the three conditions were met.
Petitioner held a general meeting whereat it agreed on the 10% special assessment.
The minutes of the meeting was recorded by the Union’s Secretary. Lastly, majority of
the Union members gave their individual check-off authorizations. Thus all of the
requisites for a valid special assessment. The case of Palacol is not applicable in this
JR.
and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, free from any interference
from public authorities. A union’s CBL is the fundamental law that governs the
relationship between and among the members of the union. Without respect for
the CBL, a union as a democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than
unit can vote. Therefore, a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate
bargaining unit is entitled to vote in the election. However, the reverse is not
always the true. An EE belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit who is not a
member of the union cannot vote in the Union election, unless otherwise
FACTS
Respondents are the elected officers of the USTFU (Union). The Union posted a
notice informing its members about an assembly for the purpose of electing a new set of
officers. Despite the temporary restraining order issued against the election, an
assembly was conducted and attended by members and non-members of the union.
Petitioners were elected as the new set of officers. A non-member of the Union called
for the suspension of the existing CBA. Subsequently, a new CBA was established.
Private respondents argue that the said election was a violation of the existing CBL as it
did not comply with the procedural requirements. Petitioner argues that the assailed
ISSUE
WON the election conducted and the suspension of the existing CBA was valid?
RULING
NO. Citing ILO Convention No, 87, worker’s organization shall have the right to
draw up their constitution and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, free
from any interference from public authorities. A union’s CBL is the fundamental law that
governs the relationship between and among the members of the union. Without
respect for the CBL, a union as a democratic institution degenerates into nothing more
than a group of individuals governed by a mob rule. In the case at bar, the Court
discredits the claim of the petitioners in stating that the election conducted was justified
incumbency.
because the procedures laid down in the CBL were not complied. It is confirmed that the
Lastly, the Court finds that the suspension of the CBA as invalid. The general
assembly conducted was not the proper forum to conduct the elections. As some of
those who voted in the election were not even members of the USTFU. Secondly, the
should have been brought up and resolved within the procedures provided by the CBL
and Labor Code. The Court does not agree with the method petitioners adopted to
rectify the years of inaction on their part as such method was a total disregard of the
LAGUESMA et al.
By the very nature of their work, confidential employees assist and act in a
confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who
exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations as such the rationale
FACTS
Petitioner union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route
managers of the respondent company. The petition was denied on the grounds that
route managers are managerial employees, thus they are prohibited for union
membership. Petitioner then argued that the first sentence of Article 245 of the Labor
ISSUE
RULING
NO. Firstly, the term manager pertains to a person who is responsible for his
levels. Top management (composed of small group of executives, responsible for the
other managers and sometimes also those operating employees, direct the activities
that implement their organization’s policies and balance the demands of superior with
the capacities of their subordinates), and First Line Management (Supervisor; direct
two categories: (1) Managers Per se, whose task is to devise, implement and control
strategic and operational policies; (2) Supervisors, whose task is simply to ensure that
such policies are carried out by the rank and file employees.
Managers Per se and not mere supervisors as their duties goes beyond of a supervisor
which is only limited to recommendation. Route managers exercise power that consists
Hence, Route Managers are considered as Managerial Employees and thus prohibited
also stated the distinction between top and middle managers who set management
policy and front line supervisor who are mere responsible for ensuring that policies are
carried out by the rank and file employees. When read with Article 212 (m) of the Labor
Code, it will be seen that Article 245 faithfully carries out the intent of Section 8, Article 3
of the Constitution.
forming or joining unions, the Court states that there is a rational basis for such reason,
and that is all these employees are confidential employees. By the very nature of their
function, they assist, and act in a confidential capacity to have or have access to
confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor
relations.
GOLDEN DONUTS, INC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Where the compromise agreement was signed by only three of the five
FACTS
Private respondents are EEs of petitioner Company. The Union expressed their
intent to re-negotiate the expiring CBA with the Company. Members of the Management
failed to appear during the CBA negotiations which prompted the Union to declare the
negotiation to have reached a deadlock. Union members staged a strike to which the
Company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. In the end, the Company and the
Union reached a compromise agreement wherein, separation pay will be given to the
Union members who participated in the strike and the Company shall drop the charges
against them. Respondent did not agree to the compromise agreement, because it was
entered without their individual consent. Petitioner argues that the compromise
agreement is binding upon those EEs who did not gave their consent, because of the
ISSUE
RULING
Citing Rule 138, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Court, the law requires a
special authority before an attorney may compromise his client’s litigation. In the case at
bar, the counsel of the Union was not authorized by the minority union members, as
orders of the court has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be
disturbed. Since the private respondents are not parties to the compromise agreement,
Lastly, petitioner failed to prove that private respondents committed any illegal
acts during the strike, and thus petitioner’s failure to reinstate them after the settlement
FACTS
Union (APSOTEU) is a legitimate labor organization affiliated with the Trade Unions
Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). Said union filed a certification of election of the
supervisory employees of the bank, to which petitioner bank did not agree because the
ISSUE
confidential employees?
RULING
NO. Based from the evidence presented by petitioner bank, the powers that
members of the union possess are merely recommendatory which are subject to
evaluation, review and final decision by the bank’s management. Hence, they cannot be
employees since petitioner failed to state who among the employees has access to
information specifically relating to labor relation policies. Assuming that they are
confidential employees, the doctrine of necessary implication shall apply to them on the
Moreover, pursuant to Article 242 of the Labor Code, one of the rights of a
Since respondent union has complied with the requisites laid down in Article 243, he is
Lastly, the Court rules that a local union maintains its separate personality
despite its affiliation with a larger national federation. In the case at bar, there is nothing
in the evidence that suggest that ALU-TUCP seeks to represent both respondent union-
and the rank-and-file union. Therefore, the allegation that respondent union violated the
FACTS
Petitioner local union conducted a general meeting. Not all members were able
to attend the meeting to which the union imposed a deduction on their compensation.
This compensation led to an intra-union conflict between petitioner local union and its
mother federation, which led the former to declare its autonomy from the latter. Taking it
as acts of loyalty, the federation expelled the union officers of the local union as well as
some members of the union. This was immediately approved by the company and
declared those EEs as dismissed from their employment. From this, the local union
company argues that the strike was illegal pursuant to the no-strike/no-lockout clause in
the CBA, and that the source of the strike was that of an intra-union conflict, and lastly,
ISSUE
RULING
YES. When the company dismissed the union officers, along with other members
of the union, the conflict was transformed from an intra-union to a termination dispute.
Petitioners were led to believe in good faith that when the company dismissed the union
officers, upon request of the federation union, the company was guilty of unfair labor
practice. Hence, the strike was based on the company’s act of dismissal. Even if the
allegations of unfair labor practice were found to be untrue, the presumption of legality
of strike prevails. As to the existing no-strike/no-lockout provision of the CBA, the same
provision can only be invoked when there is an economic strike. In the case at bar, the
strike takes of the nature of an ULP strike, hence the no-strike/no-lockout provision will
not apply. Lastly, as to the violence that occurred during the strike, the violence cannot
be solely attributed to the EEs alone for the company hired men to pacify the strikers.
Hence, there was violence on both sides, which makes the defense of violence to
ASSOCIATION et al.
from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file units in the 1986 CBA does not bar
any re-negotiation for the future inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining
unit.
FACTS
Petitioner school and respondent Union entered into a CBA which lasted for 3
years. During negotiations of a new CBA, petitioner School argues that the computer
operators assigned at the School’s Service Center as well as discipline officers should
not be part of the of the bargaining unit as had already been established in the expired
CBA. Respondent Union argues that the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced and
thus its employees must also be part of the bargaining unit of petitioner school
ISSUE
RULING
NO. The Computer operators and discipline officers are not confidential
employees. The services rendered by the computer operator are basically clerical and
and discipline officers from the CBA does not bar any renegotiation for the future
inclusion of the said employees in the bargaining unit. Members of the union can even
As regards to respondent union’s argument, the Court rules that the employees
of St. Benilde should be excluded from the bargaining unit of the rank-and-file
employees of DLSU, because the two institutions have their own separate judicial
personality and no sufficient evidence was shown to justify the piercing of the veil of
corporate fiction.
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE
BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA
G.R. No. 101738, 12 April, 2000, SECOND DIVISION, (De Leon, Jr., J.)
The mere fact that an EE is designated manager does not ipso facto make
him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the
EE, for it is the job description that determines the nature of the employment
FACTS
timber products. A Union filed a PCE in order to determine the SEBA. Petitioner
Company questioned the inclusion of some section heads and supervisors in the list of
voters. Furthermore, these concerned section heads and supervisors are considered to
be managerial EEs because of the decentralization program, and these same EEs had
the power to hire and fire EEs, hence, they cannot be part of the list of eligible voting
ISSUE
WON the concerned section head and supervisor are considered managerial
EES?
RULING
NO. The concerned section head and supervisory EEs are not actually
managerial EEs, but only supervisory EEs, since they do not lay down and execute
managerial policies. Petitioner Company’s contention that the concerned EEs had the
power to hire and fire EEs is ambiguous and misleading for the reason that such
the company policies inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to
hiring, promotion, transfer and suspension and termination of EEs is still subject to
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 127374, 31, January 31, 2002, SECOND DIVISION, (Bellosillo, J.)
Local unions have the right to separate from their mother federation on the
ground that as a separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe
their creation and existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated
FACTS
respondent Philippine Association of Free Labor Union (PAFLU) and affiliated itself with
the National Congress of Workers. PAFLU then filed a case against petitioner for unfair
RULING
YES. Pursuant to Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Mills, local
unions have the right to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as a
separate and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and
existence to the national federation to which they are affiliated but, instead, to the will of
their members.
In the case at bar, there is nothing shown in the records that PAFLU forbid the
local union to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any conditions imposed for
a valid breakaway.
JERRY A. ACEDERA et al. v. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES
G.R. No. 146073, 13, January, 2003, THIRD DIVISION, (Carpio-Morales, J.)
action, fraud, or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative
FACTS
Petitioners are EEs of the respondent Company and Members of the SEBA
Union. The Union filed a case against the Company because of its retrenchment
program. Petitioners filed a motion for intervention. They argued that the Union would
RULING
NO. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure, while a party acting
ordinarily, a person whose interest are already represented will not be permitted do to
the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion. In the case at bar,
petitioner’s fear that the Union will not prosecute the case diligently did not hold water
G.R. No. 156292, 11, January, 2005, THIRD DIVISION, (Panganiban, J.)
FACTS
Respondent union was formed and filed for its registration. Petitioner Company
placed all rank and file employees on forced leave. But later on set a condition that it will
rehire its laid off workers on the conditions that no labor union would be organized.
Upon resumption of operation, respondent filed an action for illegal dismissal against
petitioner, but the latter argued that the reason that it laid off its workers it because of
economic losses, and that it has the management prerogative to close its operation.
Petitioner also asserts that respondent union has no personality since it was held in a
ISSUE
RULING
labor organization. Although it is not clear from the record that indeed the union is a
legitimate organization, the Court is not precluded to rule otherwise, because of the pro-
labor policies in our Constitution. More so, the union has the personality to sue in its
own name in order to challenge petitioner’s unfair labor practice. Ruled otherwise, then
FACTS
Respondent union filed before the DOLE a PCE to determine the SEBA of the
motor pool, construction and transportation EEs of St. James School of Quezon City.
Petitioner School filed an election protest against the CE on the basis that 179 EEs,
argues that the Union only represents the motor pool, construction and transportation
EEs, and not the whole rank and file EEs which is composed of academic and non-
academic EEs.
ISSUE
RULING
YES. Based on upon the reading of the CBL of the respondent Union, it only
seeks to represent, the motor pool, construction and transportation EEs. Hence, the
computation of the votes should be based on the number of the concerned EEs it
represents. In the case at bar 84 out of 149 concerned EEs voted which constituted a
quorum.
RELATIONS et al.
also form associations for mutual aid and protection, and for other legitimate
FACTS
Petitioner Samahan filed before the DOLE to register its name “Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard”. Respondent Hanjin prayed for the cancellation of the
registration on the grounds that members of the association do not fall under the types
of workers in the second sentence of Article 243, and that they should have formed a
labor union instead. More so, Hanjin argues that the association is committing
misrepresentation by alleging that all of the members of the concerned association are
EEs of Hanjin. Petitioner argues that their name is derived of the place of their work,
which is Hanjin, Subic, and not because they are EEs of respondent, therefore there is
no misrepresentation.
ISSUE
1. WON a group of EEs who are EEs of respondent and other EEs in the area
RULING
YES. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule II, Book V of the IRR of the Labor Code, it
broadens the coverage of workers who can form, join or assist a worker’s association.
The right to self-organization is not exclusive to unionism. There is nothing that prevents
EEs from forming an association for mutual aid and protection. One cannot force them
to form a union. The EEs mentioned under Article 243 of the Labor Code are not the
the Corporation Code, petitioners must remove the name “Hanjin Shipyard” in their
name so as to remove any confusion and avoidance of fraud. If the name was included,
it would purport that all the members of the worker’s association is an EE of respondent
Hanjin.