Capiral, Kristianne Ysabele R.

ELE1-LM1-2

DWEU v. Secretary of Labor GR 91915, September 11, 1992

Facts:
- Divine Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) is the sole and bargaining agent of the
Divine Word University. In 1985, DWUEU submitted its collective bargaining proposals. The
University replied and requested a preliminary conference which unfortunately did not take place
due to the alleged withdrawal of the CBA proposals.
- With his, the union filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor
practice. An agreement between the University and DWUEU-ALU was held after the filing of the
notice of strike. DWUEU-ALU submitted its collective bargaining proposals but were ignored by
the University.
- Med-Arbiter Milado, acting on the University’s petition for certification election, issued an Order
directing the conduct of a certification election to be participated in by DWUEU-ALU and “no
union,” after he found the petition to be “well-supported in fact and in law. Because of this order,
it prompted the DWUEU-ALU to file with the Secretary of Labor an urgent motion seeking to
enjoin Milado from further acting on the matter of the certification election. The Divine Word
University Independent Faculty and Employees Union (DWUIFEU), which was registered earlier
that day, filed a motion for intervention alleging that it had “at least 20% of the rank and file
employees” of the University.
- The Secretary of Labor dismissed not only the case filed by DWUEU-ALU for unfair labor
practice on the ground of the union’s failure to prove the commission of the unfair labor practice
acts specifically complained of but also the complaint filed by the University for unfair labor
practices and illegal strike for “obvious lack of merit brought about by its utter failure to submit
evidence”
- The DWUEU-ALU had filed a second notice of strike charging the University with violation of
the return-to-work order which was previously ordered by the Secretary of Labor and unfair labor
practices such as dismissal of union officers, coercion of employees and illegal suspension
- The Acting Secretary then concluded that for reneging on the agreement of May 10, 1988 and for
its “reluctance and subscription to legal delay,” the University should be “declared in default.” He
also maintained that since under the circumstances the University cannot claim deprivation of due
process, the Office of the Secretary of Labor may rightfully impose the Union’s May 19, 1988
collective bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio.
Issue:
- Whether or not the complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the Union is with merit.
Ruling:
- This is clearly stated by the provisions of the Labor Code Art250(a) of which states:
"ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. — The following procedures shall be
observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon
the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not
later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice.”
Hence, the petitioner's contention that the DWUEU-ALU's proposals may not be unilaterally
imposed on it on the ground that a collective bargaining agreement is a contract wherein the
consent of both parties is indispensable is devoid of merit. The petitioner may not validly assert
that its consent should be a primordial consideration in the bargaining process. By its acts, no less
than its inaction which bespeak its insincerity, it has forfeited whatever rights it could have
asserted as an employer. The court found it superfluous to discuss the two other contentions in its
petition.
UFW v Simex Intl. GR 90519, March 23 1992
Facts:
- On 19 September 1587, thirty-six (36) workers of the "lumpia" department were not given their
usual working materials and equipment for that day and, instead, were asked to clean their
respective working areas. Since these workers were employed on a "pakiao" basis, they refused.
Nevertheless, they still reported for work on 21 September 1987 but to their surprise, they found
out that SIMEX had removed all materials and equipment from their workplaces.
- The Union claims that its members were, therefore, effectively locked out. From 1 October 1987
to 7 October 1987, sixteen (16) more workers from the other departments were similarly refused
employment.
- As a consequence, these workers, through UFW, instituted a Complaint for Unfair Labor
Practices and violation of labor standard laws against SIMEX and its principal officers and
stockholders, namely private respondents Lilia, George and Joseph, all surnamed SANTANDER,
docketed as NLRC-NCR-00-09-05329-87 (for Illegal Dismissal/Lockout of 36 "lumpia"
department workers and 16 others, etc.) On 27 June 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered his verdict
declaring that the closure of SIMEX was a mere subterfuge in order to discourage the formation
of the union.
- The respondents, SIMEX and the SANTANDERs, were found guilty of unfair labor practice and
were ordered, jointly and solidarily, to reinstate the workers without loss of seniority rights,
benefits and privileges, with full backwages from 1 10% of the total awards as attorney’s fees.
Issue:
- Whether or not a compromise had been reached by the parties and that there was a valid closure
of SIMEX which gave it the right to terminate the employment of 39 of its employees.
Ruling:
- There is no question that an employer may reduce its workforce to prevent losses. However, these
losses must be serious, actual and real. Otherwise, this "ground for termination'' would be
susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who might be merely feigning business losses or
reverses in their business ventures in order to ease out employees.
- In this regard, then, SIMEX failed to prove its claim. What were submitted as evidence were
mere receipts of export rejections, nothing more. SIMEX never adduced evidence that would
reflect the extent of losses suffered as a result of the export rejections, which failure is fatal to its
cause. The Notice of Closure filed by SIMEX had indicated that it will have a permanent
shutdown and/or total closure of all its units of operation. This was not so. Workers belonging to
the Marketing and Export Divisions were never laid off. A SEC Certification, dated 4 February
1988, shows that SIMEX never applied for dissolution.
- The Labor Arbiter also found as a fact that SIMEX continued to export its products, including
"eggroll wrap," long after its target date of closure. In explaining this discrepancy, SIMEX
merely alleged that not all its operations were closed. Even on this score alone, therefore, private
respondents' position must be rejected.
- These factors strongly give more credence to the Solicitor General and UFW's contention that the
alleged closure of business of SIMEX was "but a subterfuge to discourage the formation of a
union" and that SIMEX was guilty of union-busting. To all appearances, the company had filed a
Notice of Closure simply to pre-empt the employees from forming a union within the company.
Carmelcraft v. NLRC GR 90634-35, June 6, 1990
Facts:
- Camelcraft Employees Union but did not get recognition from the petitioners despite being duly
registered which is why the union filed a petition for certification election. Camelcraft
Corporation through Carmen Yulo, its president and general manager called a meeting with the
employees announcing the cease in operation of the Corporation due to serious financial losses to
which it did not
- The union then filed a complaint with the Department of Labor against the petitioners for illegal
lockout, unfair labor practice and damages, followed the next day with another complaint for
payment of unpaid wages, emergency cost of living allowances, holiday pay, and other benefits.
- The Labor Arbiter declared the shutdown illegal and violative of the employees' right to self-
organization. The claim for unpaid benefits was also granted. Subsequently, the Petitioner
questioned the decision of the NLRC thus this petition.
Issue:
- Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the reason invoked by the petitioner company to justify the
cessation of its operations is preposterous. Its justification is that it sustained losses in the amount
of only P1,603.88. Significantly, the company is capitalized at P3 million. Considering such a
substantial investment, we hardly think that a loss of the paltry sum of less than P2,000.00 could
be considered serious enough to call for the closure of the company.
- The real reason for the decision of the petitioners to cease operations was the establishment of
respondent Carmelcraft Employees Union. It was apparently unwelcome to the corporation,
which would rather shut down than deal with the union. The act of the petitioners was an unfair
labor practice prohibited by Article 248 of the Labor Code.
- The subordinate position of the individual employee vis-a-vis management renders him especially
vulnerable to its sweet talk, demanding, and intimidations, that may result in his carelessly and
reluctantly signing over benefits to which he is clearly entitled. Recognizing such danger, it is
held that quitclaims of the workers’ benefits will not stop them from asserting them just the same
on the ground that public policy prohibits such waivers. That the employee has signed a
satisfaction receipt does not result in a waiver; the law does not consider as valid any agreement
to receive less compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover.
- A deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee from demanding benefits to which he is
legally entitled. Release and quitclaim is inequitable and incongruous to the declared public
policy of the State to afford protection to labor and to assure the rights of workers to security of
tenure.