LABOR RELATIONS, Atty. John R. Jacome, LLB, MA, STB-MA, Partner, Romulo Jacome & Bacullo Attorneys at Law HR Director, San Beda College Alabang Professor of Law, SBCA School of Law 8 Graduate School of Business (COURSE SYLLABUS Course description: This course covers the important information about employment relations that will make students acquainted with labor laws implementing the rights to self-organization and collective bargaining, including the laws relating to strikes, pickets and lock-outs, and termination of employment. tt explores the changing relationships in the workplace that have taken their toll on the traditional collective bargaining negotiations and labor relations’ processes. ‘System of instruction: A combination of the Socratic method of recitation, case studies and a highly participatory and interactive approach to practical situations and problems confronting labor-management relationships within the company. The method of instruction is based an the combined lecture and question-and- answer. This has proved to be mare successful In effecting the harmonious development of the student's potential in reasoning and exposition. The re-statement of the codal provislonssfllowed by a discussion of the basic philosophy underlying the same, and winds up with an analysis ofthe classic jurisprudence ‘exemplifying the application ofthe legal doctrine Involved, The professor's lecture onthe fine as well as ‘the doubtful points of law, the proper interpretation, construction, harmonization and application of apparently conflicting legal theories and bring the students up to date inthe latest judicial rulings. Course Outlin A. INTRODUCTION 1. Constitutional and statutory basis 1.1 Constitution, Art. 2, Secs. 9-14, 18 and 20 1.2 Constitution, Art. 3, Secs. 10 and 18 113 Constitution, Art 13, Sec. 3 114 Labor Code, Art. 218 [Memorize] 115 New Chil Code, Artie 1700 Halaguefia, etal. vs. PAL, October 2, 2008, 602 SCRA 297 2. General principles of labor law 2.1 Existence of employer-employee relationship Is necessary forthe application of labor laws ‘© Brotherhood Labor Unity vs. Zamora, January 7, 1987, 147 SCRA 49 ‘© San Miguel Corporation Employees Union vs. Bersamira, June 13, 1990, 186 SCRA 496 3). Employment not merely a contractual relationship: ‘= Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005], ») Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee relationship? ‘+ Danilo P. Javier (Bitay Javier) vs. FlyAce Corporation, G.. No. 192558, 15 February 2012 ‘= Bernard A. Tenazas, jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca v. R. Villegas Tax! Transport, GR. No. 192998, 02 April 2014 2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity ofthe exercise of its prerogatives 2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative proceedings «= Alllem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, G.R. No. 173489, 25 February 2013, 1. Peralta, 2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity liberal interpretation of law in favor of workers, 48 Price vs. Innodata Phils, 567 SCRA 122 [2008] {PI vs. BP! Employees Union-Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August 2012 Philippine Journalist ne. vi Journal Employees Union, G.R, No. 192601, 26 June 2013 National Union of Workers In Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN] - Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc, G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2034 ‘+ Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Saarled Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi Motors Phils Corp., 6.8. No, 175773, 17 June 2013, 2.5 But management rights likewise protected © Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No 191281, 05 December 2012 2.6 Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - Constitution, Art XI, Sec. 3 * Toyota Motor Phils, Workers vs. NURC, 537 SCRA 171 2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing o ‘management's rights collide , ‘© Tirazona vs. Phil. ds Techno-Service [PET INC.],G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009 ‘+ Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber Industries, G.R. No, 184011, 18 September 2013 terests In case workers and EMPLOVER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 1. Employer defined: Art. 219 (e}, LC; DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], Ri $1 (3) 2. Employee defined: Art. 219 (f), LC; DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R14 (F) 3. Employer relationship as matrix 3.1 Conceptof employer-employee relationship 32 Teststo determine the existence of employe (Memory ald: South West Disaster Control) a. Selection and Hiring b. Payment of Wages Power of Dismissal 4. Control Test ‘* Hacienda Leddy, etal. vs. Paquito Villegas, G.R. No. 179654, 22 September 2014 Hawalian-Philco vs. Gulmatica , 238 SCRA 181 3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of Labor or the National Labor Relations Commission? ‘= People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No, 179652, (08 May 2009 1+ Meteoro etal vs. Creative Creatures, G.8. No. 171275, 13 July 2009 3.4 Reasonable causal connection: ‘* Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, 6.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2024" Isacar benefitalabor ora civil dispute? ‘Smart Communications ws. Astrga, S42 SCRA 434,27 far 2008 + Grandteq Industral Stel Products vs. Edna Margll, GR. No, 181393, 28 July 2009. Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company ca falls within ambit of the Labor Arbiter jursdeion. '* Domondon vs. NLRC, 471 SCRA 559 [2005] 3.5 Corporate officer or employee? ‘+ Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316 '* Arsenio. Locsin vs Nissan Lease Phils Inc. and Luis Banson, G.R. No. 185567, 20 October 2010. ‘© Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines Ine. G.R. No.168757, 19 January 2011 ‘Raul C.Cosare vs, Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo, G.R. No. 201298, 05 February 20143.6 Effect when NO employer-employee relationship exists, or when the main Issue does not involve Er-Ee relationship - jurisdiction devolves with the regular courts = Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427 Georg Grotjahn GMBH vs. isnani, 235 SCRA 216 = Eviota vs. Court of Appeals, 407 SCRA 394 [2003] 4, WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST Re: VALID JOB CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS. DOLE Department Order No. 18 series of 2002; Dept. Order No. 18-A, 14 November 2013; and Dept. Order No. 1, series of 2012, 4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services ‘© Asian Alcohol Corp vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 [1998] 4.2 Independent contractor/Job-contracting vs. Labor-only contracting Dept. Order No. 18-02 [21 February 2002; Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011) ‘© Fonterra Brands Phils Inc. vs. leonardo Largado, eta, G.R. No, 205300, 18 March 2015 ‘+ Allin vs. Petron, 6.R. No, 177582, 08 June 2014. HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS LABOR-ONLY ‘CONTRACTING. '* Garden of Memories Park and Life Plan vs. NLRC 2” Division, .R. No. 160278, 08 Feb 2012, 665 SCRA 293 ‘= 7K Corporation vs. NLRC, GR 148490, 22 Nov 2006, S07 SCRA S09, 523 ‘THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED IS. AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. ‘= Fuji Television Network, ne. vs. Arlene S. Espiritu G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014. 4.3 Examples: Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees. ‘© Semblante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, 15 August 2011. ‘Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent ‘= Temic Automotive Phils. vs. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union-FFW, G.. No, 18695, 23 December 2009 ‘Television Company vs. Talent ‘© Jose Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.A. No, 138051, 10 June 2004 1 ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, GR 164156, 26 Sept 2006 © Farley Fulache etal vs. ABS-CBN, GR 183810, 21 Jan 2010 ‘+ Nelson Begino vs. ABS-CBN, GR No, 199166, 20 April 2015 Insurance company vs. commission agents ‘+ Insular Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459 ‘¢Tongko vs. Manufacturers’ Life Insurance Company (Phils) Inc, G.R. No, 167622, 29 June 2010 4.4 Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job Contracting Arrangements: capitalization, other requirements and negative list Mandatory registration of Independent contractors (D018, s11) Requirements for registration Declaration of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (D018A, s3(g)) Capitalization of atleast P3Million (D018A, s13{I]) ‘THE NEGATIVE LIST- What cannot be subcontracted out (D018, as amended by 01847) vyvvyontractor~ Solidary labil sity of principal for unpald wages of the emplayees]ob © ntractor 4.5 Uability ofp wy ae Sa tr 8 2 Scene lina arn . COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6: 54 Covered employment 2. Industrial and agricultural employees 'b. Employees of labor organization Employees of Independent contractor 4. Employees of non-stock, non-profit organlzations 52 Excluded employment 2. Government employees + Republic ws. Cour of Appeals, 180 SCRA 428 Manila Pubic Schoo! Teachers Ass. Vs. Laguio,200 SCRA 323 + Catino vs. Commission on Human ight, 204 SCRA 283 ‘Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA ‘+ Abanila vs. Commission on Audit, 468 SCRA 87 [2005} ‘+ Employees of GOCCs Lumanta vs. NURC, 170 SCRA 79 b.Gxempted employers ‘Managerial employees, with respectto right to unionize © MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES Valid exercise of management prerogative [Memorize clements] ‘The free wil ofthe management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose can PROVIDED THAT THE SAME IS EXERCISED: Purpose cannot be denied, > IN GOOD FAITH (BONA-FIDE IN CHARACTER), FORTHE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYER'S INTEREST; AND > NOTTO CIRCUMVENT THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES, * Capt Meal Cente vs, Merz San Miquel rewery and Union carbide ase) 1. Generally: ‘+ San Miguel Brewery Sales vs, Ople, 170 ScRA 25 2. Examples ofthe exercise of management ogatives 2.1 Hiring of personnel and size of workforce. Wiltshire File Co. vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 66S 2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line * Royal Plant Werters Union ve Cae-Col Bots Phils, 8 256783, 25 api ota 2.3 Prohibition agalnst Elective Office ‘+ Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R, 184885, 07 March 20122.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct ‘© Briccio “Ricky” Pollo vs. Chalrperson Karina Constantino-David, G.R. 181881, 18, October 2012 25 Transfer of employees ‘= Pharmacia and UPIOHN, Inc. (now Pfizer Philippines Inc.) vs. Albayda, Jr, G.R. No.172724, 23 August 2010 Prince Transport vs. Garcia, G.R. No, 167291, 12 January 2011 ‘May employee refuse transfer by ralsing said transfer as a grievance? ‘= Manila Pavillion vs, Henry Delada, G.R. No. 189947, 25 January 2012 2.6 Terms and conditions upon hiring; qualification and change inlaw ‘© St. Luke's Medical Center Employees’ Union ~ AFW vs. NLRC, 517 SCRA 677 [2007] 2.7 Terms and conditions upon hiting; ban on spouses in same company: ‘Star Paper vs, Simbol, 487 SCRA 228 [2006] ‘Compare with: Stipulations against marriore ‘= Duncan assodation of Detailman~PGTWO and Tecson vs Glaxo Wellcome Phils, GAR. No, 1647, 12 April 2006; 438 SCRA 343 [2004] 2.8 Terms and conditions upon hing; non-compete clauses ‘© Ollendorf vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 55 Red line transportation co. vs. Bachrach motor co., 67 Phil 77, Dator vs. UST, Rev. Fs. Tamerlane Lana and Rodel Aligan, 31 Aug 2016 Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila SSO SCRA 415 [28 March 2008] ‘Avon Cosmetics vs. Leticia Luna G.R. No. 153674, 20 Dec 2006 2.9 imposition of weight requirement: ‘= Armando G. Yrasuegul vs. Philippine Altines, GR. No. 168081, 37 October 2008 2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours ‘© Philippine Graphic Arts vs.NLRC, 166 SCRA 188 (1988) ‘© Unton Comml. Co. vs. Herrera, 535 SCRA 434 [2007] 2.11 Reorganlaation as.an exercise of management prerogatives + Jonathan V. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, G.R. No, 174208, 25 January 2011. 3. Policies as to employee classification/status pertains to coverage purposes ‘© Natl Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 311. + Pier 8 Arrastre vs. Roldan-Confesor, 261 SCRA 294 [1995] © Goya ine. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013 Doctrine of “equal pay or equal work” ‘+ Philex Gold Phils. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union, 468 SCRA 111 3.1 Regular vs. casual employees, Art 280 LC Policy Instructions No.12; Dept. Order No. 10, Art. IV amending Sec. 5, Rule 2, Bk. IV of Implementing Rules) 3.2 Probationary employees, Art. 282 LC, Policy Instructions No. 13; Dept. Order No. 10, Article V amending Sec. 6, Rule 1, Book VI of Implementing Rules ‘© Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250 Mariwasa vs, Leogarlo, 169 SCRA 465, ‘+ Int. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606 Extended probationary period; when allowed. ‘= Ver Buiser vs. GTE Directories, 131 SCRA 151 ‘+ University ofthe East, Dean Eleanor Javier et.al vs. Analiza Pepanio and Marit. Bueno, G.R. No, 193891, 23 January 2013le probation: ning pus rbatlonr period eau 0 i tune nn Manila vs. NLRC, 226: ‘SCRA 417 [1993] sone rte rotatory emoleyestatneastocomrywaa coma Mes andeguatons Te Phil. Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay, GR 1164532, 24 July 2007 But probationary nature to prevail over term: Pr rads ve AMA Computer Coleg Prarague 13 AP 2010 2 Cotepio del Santisimo Rosario vs. Rojo GR 370388, 03 Sept 2013 3.3 Term employment «Brent School vs, Zamora, 181 SCRA 702 Pakistan Ai Lines vs. Ope, 290:SCRA 90 Cielo s, NLRC, 193 SCRA 410 Phil. Village Hotel vs. NURC, 230.SCRA 423 Anderson vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 116 [1996] [AMA Computer College Paranaque vs. Austra, $38 SCRA 436 [20071 Jamaias VS NLRC, G.R. No. 159350, 09 March 2016 Viernes, etal, vs, National Labor Relations Commissions, et al ‘April 2003), 400 SCRA S57 (04 3.4 Project employees Policy Instructions No, 20 DOLE Dept Order No. 19, series of 1993, Section 2.2[e) and [f] ‘© Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Visca, S67 SCRA 268 [2008] Indicators of project employment, enumerated: ‘© Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez, GR 170181, 26 June 2008 ‘Absence of definite duration for projects lead to conclusion of regular employment. — ‘= PNOC-Energy Devt Ba ws. NLRC, 523 SCRA 222 [2007], 3.5 Seasonal Employees ‘© Mercado vs. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332 ‘+ Hacienda Fatima vs. Natl Federation of Sugarcane Workers, 396 SCRA 518 [28 Jan 2003) EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS. '» Gapayaovs. Fulo and $55, GR. No, 193483, 13 June 2013, ‘= Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati,G.R. No, 186439, 15, January 2014 43.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees ‘Act. 219 (m), LC; Policy Instructions No. 8 ‘© Rural Bank of Cantilan vs, Jlve, 517 SCRA 17 [2007] ‘C.JURISDICTION REMEDIES AND APPEAL 1. Labor Arbiter ‘Art.224, labor Code 1 Selenite saa2. National Labor Relations Commission, ‘Art, 224 (b]; Art. 229, Labor Code 2.1 Powers ofthe Commission (Art. 225) 2.2 Ocular Inspection (Art. 226) injunctive power 2.3 Technical Rules net binding and prior resort to amicable settlement (Art.227) ‘= MERALCO vs Jan Carlo Gala, G.R. No. 191288 & 191304, March 7, 2012 ‘= Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc vs. Court of Appeals, and Dimpaz, G.R. No, 155844, July 14, 2008 24 Jurisdiction; original and exclusive appellate (Art. 224 b; 229) ‘= [sli Trading v. Capada et. al, January 31, 2012 Garcia vs Kd Commercial, February 29, 2012 ‘Ong vs. CA, September 22, 2008 Rosewood Processing vs, NLRC SFI vs, NLRC, December 11, 2003 ‘Buenabora vs. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2008 2.5 NLRC can decide the legality of deduction © Santos vs. Servier Philippines, November 28, 2008 26 Effect of NLRC reversal of labor arbiters order of reinstatement 2.7 REINSTATEMENT ASPECT OF LABOR ARBITER’ DECISION = Roquero vs. PAL, April 2, 2004 ‘© Airphil Corps. Zamora, August 7, 2004 ‘+ Lansangan vs. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2008 ‘© Genuino vs NLRC, December 4, 2007 ‘+ Juanito Garcia vs, PAL, G.R. No, 164856, January 20, 2009 ‘Mt. Carmel College, vs. locelyn Resuena etal, G.R, No. 173076, October 10, 2007 ‘Buenviaje vs CA and Cottonway Marketing Corp, G.R. No, 147806, Nov. 12, 2002 Pfizer, Inc vs Geraldine Velasco, G.R, No. 177467, March 8, 2011 2.8 APPEALTOTHE NLRC 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by NLRC En Bane Resolution No. 13-12, series of 2012 ‘+ Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd, et, at. vs. Estanislao Suri, eta. G.R. No, 154213, 23 August 2012. Requirements for appeal from Labor Arbiter’ Decision: a) Ten days from receipt of Decision b) Appeal fee ‘)Surety bond in an amount equivalent to monetary award 2.9 Meaning of substantial compliance with requirement of appeal bond for perfection af ‘appeal to the NLRC. ‘+ Phil Toursters inc Vs. Mas Transit Workers (MTI) ~ KMU), G.R, No, 203237, 03 September 2014, + Mt Carmel Employees’ Union Vs. Mt Carmel School, G.R. No. 186274, 24 Sept 2014 2.20!ssues on Appeal; Remé 2.11 Conciliation and Mediation 2.12 Requirements to perfect appeal to Court of Appeals (Petition for Certiorar) 2.13 Effect on NLRC's Decision of the Petition for Certiorari, 2.44 Execution (230) 2.35 Article 230, EXECUTION OF DECISIONS, ORDERS OR AWARDS 2011 NLRC Rules; Marwal of Execution. ‘Sy etal vs. Kniteraft Co,, December 12, 2013 ‘Yupangco Cotton Mill vs. CA, January 16, 2002 Ando vs Compo, February 16, 2002 Extraordinary Remedies2. Secretar of abor 3.1 Jurisdiction of DOLE on its Mtr Pow me eee ite + Feole' oat anor and Employment, G8 No. 17962, 06 March 2012 3.2 Requisites for the valid exercise of the ' visitorial and enforcement powers | a a ames, ‘« Rizal Security and protective agency vs. Hon ‘Maraan, G.R. No. 124915, 3.3 Three (3) separate powers treated in Article 128 > Visitorial power — > Enforcement Power: Coverage (compliance orders, writ of execution, stoppage of work, keeping and maintenance of employment records) 3.4 Nature of Visitorial and enforcement powers/ subject of the visitorial and enforcement powers 35 Who are the duly authorized representatives of the DOLE Sec? 3.6 Appeal tothe DOLE Secretary 3.7 Reglementary period/ grounds for appeal 3.8 Artie 128 vs 129 vs 217 Nature of proceedings and concomitant powers granted On the person or officers granted the powers ‘On the subject matter (On the accompanying claims for reinstatement (On the party initiating the action On the existence of employer-employee relationship On the remedy of appeal, how taken? On the reglementary period of appeal ‘On requirement of posting of bond to perfect the appeal ‘On the grounds for appeal (On the period to decide appeal and finality of decision 39 Injunetion/TRO 3.10 Assumption of jurisdiction o certification ofa labor dispute under former Ar. 263 (6 results in a status quo ante order or return to work order ‘= Bagong Pagkakasa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International vs. Secretary of Labor, GR No. 167401, July 5, 2010 pan ‘International Pharmaceuticals In. vs, Sec. of Labor, GR. No. $2981-83, ‘USTv. NURC and UST Faculty Union, GR No, 89920, October 12, 1990 3.11 Power to suspend effects of termination (former 277 B, ast sentence) ‘Grounds; Rationale; Reinstatement pending resolution ofthe termination lspute ‘Who are the appropriate officials under former 277 (b}? s 3.12 Arrest and Detention (Art. 278) 3.13 Contempt powers (Art. 231) 3.14 Original and Appellate powers Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs CA, 348 SCRA S65 *Phimco Industries, inc vs rillantes, 304 SCRA 747 ‘+ National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 405, 4, Reglonal Director -Art. 129, LC 4.1 Small money claims without reinstatement under Atile 129, 4.2 Claims that may be recovered; Requisites forthe valid exercise of jrisdieion Co directors or hearing officers under Article 123 ce 443 Juradietion when total money daims exceeds 5,000‘4.4 When claim does not exceed 5000 but employee prays for reinstatement 45 Effect of daiming separation pay n lieu of reinstatement as an alternative remedy 4.6 Employment relationship should no longer exst atthe time ofthe initiation of the complaint for ‘money claim, otherwise 47 Appeals from decision of DOLE regional director under Article 129 4.8 How many days? Grounds for appeal and requisites for appeal are similar to those from LA to NLRC 49 Visitorial and enforcement power Art. 128 ‘© Maternity Children’s Hopsital vs. Sec of Labor, 174 SCRA 632 ‘© Odin Security Agencty vs Dela Serna 182 SCRA 472 © Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 665 '= SSK Parts Corporation vs Caras, 181 SCRA 675 4.10 Petition for certification election 5.1 Jurisdiction (original and appellate) Inter-union and intra-union Conflicts > Disputes arising from or affecting labor-management relations except grievances > Registration of CBA ‘5.2 Appeal ofthe BLR Decision. ‘= Employees Union of Sayer Phils, vs Bayer Phis, December 6, 2010 ‘Montano vs Verceles, July 26, 2010 Diokno vs, Cacdac, July 4, 2007 Pepsi Cola Sales and Advertising Union vs Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843 ‘Abbott Laboratories Phils, Ine. ws Abbott Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392 ‘5.3 Compromise agreements (Art 233) Release and Quitclaim; When valid, when not valid ‘+ Phil, National Construction Corp. v. NLRC (6.R. No. 95846, October 27, 1992) Veloso v. DOLE, 200 SCRA 201 (91) Union of Filipino Workers v. NLRC, 207 SCRA 435 (82) AG & P Co. of Mia. V. NLRC (G.R. No. 127516, May 28, 1999 ‘Magbanusa vs. Uy, May 6, 2005 Philippine Journalists Inc. v. NLRC, September 22, 2008 S54 Issuance of Subpoeanas (Art. 234) '55 Appointment of Bureau Personnel (235) ‘5.6 Registry of Unions and File of Collective Agreements (Art. 236) ‘5.7 Prohibition on Certification Election (art. 237) 5.8 Privileged Communication (238) 6. Voluntary Arbitrator (Art. 261, LC) (NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration) NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings (Oct. 15,2008) DOLE Circular No. 1 6.1 Types of voluntary arbitrator 6.2 Where to file pleadings/ service/representations/ imitation on authority to bind party/ 6.3 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators ‘Original and exclusive (6) unresolved grievances arising fram interpretation or Implementation or CBA ‘company personnel policies Violations of CBA which are not gross in character, 4d. wage distortion arising fram the application of any wage orders in organized establishments, Other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlocks, upon agreement ofthe parties. f. Termination dispute sitagrievable issue? + Landlex Industries v, CA, G.R. No. 150278, August 9, 2007 Money claims cases? Jurisdiction over the same? (Art. 224 (e) ‘Del Monte vs. Saldivar, G.R, No, 158620, Oct. 13, 20066.4 Referral to voluntary arbitrators {65 Concurrent Jurisdiction 16.6 When Jurisdiction is exercised 16.7 Enforcement of Decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators. How? 6.8 Powers and duties of voluntary arbitrators? 6.9 May DOLE Secretary act as Voluntary Arbitrator? ‘2. Administrative Intervention for Dispute Avo Series of 2006 Parties who may request for the Dale Secretary's Intervention, Potential or ongoing dispute ey Pre-requisite to intervention by the DOLE Secretary DOLE Regional Directors and Assistant Directors May act as EX-officio Voluntary Arbitrators (Oepartment Order No. 83-07 Series of 2007, June 8, 2007) idance (AIDA) No. 1 DOLE Circular No. 2, pang 6.10 Philippine Arbitration Law, not applicable to labor case \ 6.11 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, nat applicable to labor cases 6.12 Initiation of arbitration, when? 6.13 Submission agreement, defined. 16.14 Contents of a submission agreement? 6.15 Notice to Arbitrate, defined. 6.16 Submission to arbitration through Notice to Arbitrate 6.17 Procedure; Contents of a Notice to Arbitrate 16.18 Submission Agreement vs Notice to Arbitrate? 6.19 Proceedings before voluntary arbitrator (nature, Initial conference, effect of non-appearance, ‘submission of position papers and other pleadings, decison, period to render decision, sanction for fallure to comply withthe period to decid, finality of decision, mation for reconsideration) ‘+ Teng v. Pahagac, GR. No. 163704, Nov. 17, 2010 16.20 Execution of proceedings; enforcement of decision; motion forthe issuance of writ of execution. ‘must be filed with; 6.21 Effect of filing of petition for certiorari on execution 6.22 Mode of Appeal? Rule 43, Rules of Court 16.23 Is the voluntary arbitrator a part of a government unit or a personnel under DOLE? 6.28 Grounds for Judicial review? ‘© Ludo & Luym Corp. vsSaordino, 395 SCRA 451 Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268 Manila Midtown Hotel v. VA Borromeo, G.R. No, 138305, 9-22.08 Tabigue etal vs. Int Copra Export Corp, GR 183335, 23 Dec.2009 Goya ine. vs. Goya Employees Union, GR. No. 170054, 21 January 2013 7. Grievance Machinery (Art. 260, LC) 7.1 Juriscietion 7.2 Period to resolve grievance machinery? ‘* Master iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47 ‘© San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC 304 SCRA 1 8, National Conciliation & Mediation Board (NCMB- BS R13°S3, IRR) '8.:1 Strikes and Lock-outs; See chapter on Strikes Labor Injunctions (Arts. 254; 218 and 263, Labor Code.) = Deltaventures Resources, nc. vs. Judge Cabato, 327 SCRA S21 2 blsiging Mangengawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 499 {8.2 Conciliation vs. Mediation vs arbitration [NCMa Manual of Procedures for Conclation and Preventive Mediation Cases); IRR Labor Code (Rule 1 Book V1 ee abigue v international Copra Export Corporation, G.R, No, 183335, Dec. 23, 2009, 18.3 Preventive Mediation ‘8.4 Process on preventive mediation?5 Authority to convert a notice of strike/lockout into a preventive mediation case. Grounds? 8.6 Effect of conversion of a notice of strike/lockout into a preventive suspension 8,7 Status of strike is staged after conversion of the notice of strike intoa preventive mediation case? ‘© San Miguel Corporation v, NLRC, G.R. No. 119293, une 10, 2003, 8.8 Single Entry Approach Rules on procedure of the Single Entry Approach (March 8, 2011) Department Order No, 107-10 Purpose ‘Where SEnA is operational, (3) Coverage Cases not covered Request for asistance Where tofile Notice of Conference Conduct of Concilation-Mediation PreTermination of the 30 day MCMP Termination of SEnA proceedings Compliance with Settlement Agreement Issuance of Referral Confidentiality of Proceedings Settlement agreement; effect? ©. Non-compliance with settlement agreement; execution paorvozesmpange 8. Court of Appeals 19.1 Rule 43 vs, Rule 65, Rules of Court (Petition for Certirari) 1922 Grounds 9.3 Is ta matter of right or not? 9.4 Period toile certiorari? Extendibe or not? 9.5 Canitbe filed after the NURC decision become final and executory? 9.6 When reckoned? ‘¢St-Martin’s Funeral Homes vs NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 Veloso vs China Alrines Ute, 310 SCRA 274 Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, 323 SCRA SO Phil Airlines, Inc vs. NLRC, 328 SCRa 273 IMC Engineering, Inc. s. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 410. Supreme Court Rule 45, Rules of Chil Procedure 10.1 Rule 45, Rules of Court 410.2 What mode of appeal? 10.3 Reglementary period to file appeal 10.4 May Rule 65 substitute for a lost appeal under rule 45? 110.5 Adm. Matter No. 07-7-12- SC amending Rule 65 of the Rules ‘of Court and Related Rules. 10.6May a party file both petition under rule 45 and 65? © Tancinco vs GSI, 369 SCRA 221 ‘= Abalos vs Pilex Mining Corp, 393 SCRA 134 11, Other Issues 111. Labilty ofthe Transferee of an Enterprise ‘+ Sundowner Dev. Corp. vs. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 Filipinas Port Services, Ine. vs. NURC, 200 SCRA 773, 11.2 May employer offset costs of employee's tralning fram retirement benefits? = Bibiano C Elegir vs. Philippine Acines, Inc. G.R, No, 181995, 16 uly 2012. a11.3 Worker’ preference of credit vslien on unpaid aBeS, © Art. 110 LC DBP vs. NLRC, 229 Es 351 DBP, NLRC, 242 SCRA 9 [1895] + Peni Banks. URC, GA, NO.112592(290Dee 29951 ‘© Manvel . Yngson, J, (in is capacity as the Liquidator of AR 7 National Bank. G.. No. 171132, 15 August 2012. reser dein termination cases 4114 Prescriptive period in Labor Code prevails over Civil Co 1 Tauresnove, Court ot Appeals 32 SCRA A [2000] Vicor ner vs, Race, 519 SCRA 457 (007) ‘+ Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp vs. Panginiban, 514 SCRA 404 [2007] SUPPLEMENTAL CASES: Halagueta, eta. vs. PAL, October 2, 2009, 602 297 Hawalian-Philco vs. Gulmatico , 238 SCRA 181 Sulpicio Lines vs, NLRC, 254 SCRA 506 Nube vs. Lazaro, January 19, 1988, 157 SCRA 123 Silva vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 159, Pioneer Concrete vs, Todaro, 524 SCRA 153, Kawachi vs. del Quero, 519 SCRA 102 Cabalen Mgt. Co. Inc. etal vs. Quiambzo, $18 SCRA 342 Manaya vs. Alabang Country Club, 525 SCRA 140 Metro Transit vs Piglas-NFWU-KMU, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 326 Laguna Metts Corporation vs. CA, et. al. —luly 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139 Jaime S. Domdom vs. Sandigan, Feb. 26, 2010, 613 SCRA 528 Johnson & Johnson vs, Johnson Ofic and Sales Union, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 672 |HPPHIL Marine, nc. vs. NURC— Aug. 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 675 PNB Vs. Velasco Sept, 11, 2008, 564 SCRA S12 ‘AMA Computer vs. Nacino, Feb. 12, 2008, 544 SCRA S02 G&M(Phil) vs. Rivera, Jan. 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 180 Diokno vs. Cacdac, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 440 Reyes vs. NLRC, Feb. 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 322 Magbanua.et al. v Uy, G.RNo.161003, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 184 Eurotech Hair Systems, Inc. et.al. vs. Go, August 31, 2006, 500SCRA 611 ‘+ Yupangco Cotton Mills vs. CA January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 451 . RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION Department Order No. 9 [21 lune 1957} and, Department Order No. 4, [17 February 2003] Republic Act No, 9481 (25 May 2007) 4. Principles of distributive and socal justice found in the constituto Rights of workers ARTI (state policies) Sec. 9 ARTI, Sees. Land 8 ‘ART. Xl (National Economy and Patrimany), Secs. 1 6 and 12 ART il (Social Justice & Human Rights; Labor), Sees.18.3 Article 3, Labor Code: Declaration of Policy ‘+ Mueva Fl Electric Coop (NEECO Employees Assocation v. NLRC, an 24, 2000, No, 116066 ‘Statutory Basis: ‘+ UST Faculty Union vs Bitoni, 318 SCRA 186 ‘National Union Bank Employees vs. tonio, 10SCRA.274 ‘+ UE, Automative Employees v. Notiel, 74 SCRA 72Concept of freedom of association: ILO Convention No. 87; (LCP 219 G;F M); LCP Art. 252-256; (258-e); 267-271, ‘= Uberty Cotton Mils Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Nils, G.R. No. | 1975/May 31, 1979 ‘© BPI vs BPI employees Union Davao Chapter, G.R. No. 164301, Oct. 19, 2011, 33987, Sept. 4. 2. Who cannot unionize for purposes of collective bargaining. (Azucena, pp. 140-148]; Executive Order No. 180 Effect of Inclusion as Members of employees outside the bargaining unit (255) Ineligible Employees or workers with no right of self-organization 2.1 Government employees { supra., Part 8, sec. 5.2 (a) 2.2 Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, 2.3 Members of a cooperative CCENECO vs DOLE, 201 SCRA S84 ‘+ Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Caleja, 180 SCRA 740 ‘+ BUT: Republic ofthe Philippines represented by SSS vs. AsiaPro Cooperative, G.R. No 172101, 3 Nov 2007 2.4 Managerial employees, Art 245 f, Art. 212 {m], Labor Code Dept. Order No. 9, Rule Il, Sec. Dept Order 40, Ri S1(hh) Higher standards required of managers: ‘+ Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007] 25 Confidential employees: Doctrine of necessary Implication ‘© Philips industrial Development vs. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339 ‘= Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA S17 ‘© Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000] © Tunay na Pagkaksisa ng Manggagawa sa Asla Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 1162025, 03 August 2010. ‘= Dela Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn., 330 SCRA 363 [2000] ‘= San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees Union vs. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 1997} 2.6 Employees of International Organizations or Specialized Agencies \wiich are registered with the United Nations and enjoys diplomatic immunity ‘© International Catholic Migration Association v. Calle, 190 SCRA 130 Contra: ‘© German Agency for Technical Cooperation|GTZ) vs. CA GR. No. 152318 436 April 2009 Non-employees (252) Republic Planters Bank et, v. Laguesma, 264 SCRA 637 a, Employees of international Org: © Party protected Mactan Workers Union v. Aboti, 45 SCRA S77 NNon-abridgment of Right (256) Sanctions for Violation of Right (Art. 256, 258, 259, 302, 203) '3. Who can unionize for purposes of collective bargaining (Azucena , pp. 140-149; Art, 245 Leef, 65 R2 S1, IRR) Extent and scope ofthe right; who may oln unions (Art, 252) Art. 291 (e) ‘Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule Il, Sec. 2; Art, 256 ‘+ Reyes vs Trajano, 209 SCRA 484; ‘© Kapatiran v Caleja, 162 SCRA 367; 2loyees Association, 27 SCRA 202; Am Empl Ines Pam En 152SCRA725 en Wold AV, asc 2 an errs a raion E:T su supervisory Employees (anna in wth ak ana le) Defined: D040, R11 (0) FlioitRefinery Corp. Flo Supervisory and Confidential Employees Association, 46 SCRASIZ RA AS2 National Sugar Refineries Corpv. NLRC, 220 SCF + Dunlop Slazenger Pils. nc. v. Sec of DOLE, 300SCRA 120 Samson, NLRC, 330 SCRA 295 ‘But note: Can they belong to the same federation? ‘© Atlas lithographic vs Usec Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12 Republic act no. 9481, Section 8, amending Article 245 of the Labor Code. 3.2 Rankand file employees (But cannot jin supervisory unlon) Defined: D040, R1 $1 (nn) ‘Alliance of Nationalists ete. v. Samahang ete, 258 SCRA 371 3.3 Security guards ‘+ Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (zupra.) 220SCRA 339 ‘+ Manila Electric Company v. See of Labor, 197 SCRa 275 3.4 Allen employees with valid working permits Dept. Order No. [1997] Rule, Sec. 2 3.5 Non profit Organization ‘+ FEU vs. Trajano, 152 SCRA 725 3.6 Members of Religious Group *+ Vicoriano v Elizalde Workers Union, $9 SCRA S4)Kapatian etc v, Clleja, 162 SCRA 367 3.7 Government Corporation Employees (253 Lc) 3.8 Workers-Cooperatives ‘© Arzala vs Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA S84 ‘+ Benguet Electric Cooperative vs Calle, 180SCRA 740 ‘© Grurvale, Inc vs Laguesma, 238 SCRA 389 + Portworkers Union vs LAguesma, 207 SCRA 329 + Kalsahan ng mga Manggagawang Plipino vs Trajano, 201 SCRA 453 ‘+ National Congress of Unions inthe Sugar Industry ofthe Philippines vs. Trajan Progressive Development Corp vs Secretary, 205 SCRA 802 ne, 208 Ra 18 ‘+ Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, nc. vs Tagaytay MigMands Em PTGWO, 395 SCRA 699 . jlopees Undone ‘© Associated Labor Union-PTGWO vs NLRC, 188 SCRA 123 ‘© ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union vs. ABS-CBN Broadeasting Corp. 304 SCRA 489 .LABOR ORGANIZATION ‘Azucers, pp. 95-105; Fernandez, 213-278 [DOLE Department Order No.9, [24 une 1997, and Department Order No.4, [7 Febrvary 2003, ul I Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007) 4. Definitions 1. Labor organization Art. 212(g); Dept Order No.9, Sf) D040, A, See) ‘+ Aine Plots Association ofthe Pils. CIR, 76SCRA 274 Dunlop ete ws Sec of Labor, 300 SCRA 120 “41.2 Legitimate labor organization - 212 (h); 009, RI ii); DO 40, RA, S1 (ee) Effect: Art. 242, LC Book 5, Rule 2, Sec. 10, RR Basis of Legitimacy: ‘* Cebu Seaman's Association, Inc. v Ferrer Calleja-212 SCRA SO ‘+ Progressive Dev. Corp. Sec DOLE, 205 SCRA 802 ‘+ Tagaytay Highlands etc. vs Tagaytay Highlands etc. 395 SCRA 699 1.3 Company union - Art. 212 (i) 11.4 Others: Legitimate Workers’ Association, DO40, R11 (tf) 2. Rationale for unionization ‘= United Seamen's Union v, Davao Shipowners Assn. 20SCRA 1226 ‘© University of Pangasinan v NLRC, 218 SCRA 65 43. Union registration and procedure; requirements; modes of acquiring legitimate status; Art (239: 243); Book V, Rules Il, IV (Department Order No. 9. [2 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [37 February 2003], Rule 3, Sections 1-11; Article 234 LC as amended by Rep. Act Ho. 9481) a. Effect on Guarantee of Freedom of Association ‘+ PAFLU v. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 41 3.1 Independent union, requirements for organization ‘Art 234, LC; BS R2 52-4, IRR; DOS, Rl, Si}; 0040 R3 $2 Republic Act No. 9481, Section 1, amending Art. 234, LC 3.2 Affiliation with federation and national union, requirements for organization ‘At. 234 & 237, Le; BS R2S2-4 RR; DO9, Rll (ll DO4O R3 $2, $69 ‘Art. 234-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481 Chartered Local, defined under DO No. 40 RIS (i) ‘+ San Miguel Corp (Vandaue PPP] vs. Mandaue Packing Products Plants ~San Miguel Corporation Monthlies and Rank-and-File Union ~ FFw, 467 SCRA 107 (2005) 3.3 Attestation requirements ~ verified by Secretary/Treasurer, and attested by President ‘thereof - DO 9, RVS2 (i) ‘Whether charter certificate issued by Federation needs to be certified and attested by the local union officers, as part of the registration requirements of a charter = ‘+ Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical Solidariy of Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER) vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., GR 169717, 16 March 2011. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v, Secretary of Labor, Decemer 21, 2009 Electromat Manufacturing and recording corp. v. Lagunzad, July 27, 2031. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs CA and EREU, G.R. No, 178989, March 18, 2010 ‘Tagaytay Highlands Int. Golf Club Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO, G.A. No, 142000, January 22, 2003 ‘+ S.SVentures International, Inc vs. $5 Ventures Labor Union, G.R. No. 161680, July 23, 2008 3.4 Action by the Bureau of Labor Relations ‘Arts, 235-236, LC; BS R2 55-6, IRR; DO 9, RV, S3-4 ‘© Progressive Development Corp, vs. Laguesma 271 SCRA, ‘+ Vassar industrial employees Union v. Estralla, 82 SCRA 280 Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization (250); 218h ‘+ -Rcedera v International Container Services, Inc. 395 SCRA 103 Effect of Non-registration ‘© Protection Technology Inc. v. Sec of Labor, 242 SCRA 99 ‘+ Sugbuanon Rural Bank, In v. Laguesma, 324 SCRA 4253.5 Reportorial requirements Article 242-A, LC, as inserted by Rep. Act No. 9481, Sec. 7 3.6 Cancellation ‘Arts, 238-239; BS R2 $7-11, IRR; DO 9, RVI! Republic Act No. 9481, secs. 5-9, amending Art 239, C; effect of amendment Takata (Philippines) Corporation vs Bureau of Labor Relations and Samahang Lakas, ‘Manggagawa Ng Takata (Salamat), Respondents. G.R. No. 196276, June O4, 2014 Discrepancies in number of members stated in application, whether a ground for Cancellation on account of fraud ‘Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor, GR 183317, 21 December 2009 Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle Ridge Employees Union {EREU], G.R. No, 178989, 18 March 2010 Fallure to submit annual financial report; no longer a ground for cancellation ‘of union registration ‘The Heritage Hotel Manila vs, natonal union of Workers in the hotel, reataurant {and allied Industries-hertage hotel manila Supervisor's chapter Gr. No 178236, January 22,2011, Filing of petition for cancelation of Union's registration Is not per se an act of up Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union Vs, NLRC 317 SCRA 669 (1999) Registration of union not to subject to collateral attack ‘San Miguel Employees Union-TGWO vs. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union, $33 SCRA 125, Inclusion of supervisory employees in the REF union is NOT a ground to Impugn the legitimacy of the union.- ‘SANINACLIKHA VS, SAMA corp GR. No, 167441 March 33, 2009 ‘Compare with requirements under new lav, republeatno 848, secs, Amending article 238 and 238 of the Labor C Be ode; also Article 238-2, 1¢ Pendency of a petition for cancellation of nin registration will not prec collective bargaining — Legend international Resorts. llusang Mangeagowa ng Legend, Legend era eRIEaWaNg Legends, GR 169754, ‘Voluntary cancellation ~ Article 239-8, LC as inserted by Republic ‘Act No. 9481, Sec. 6 ‘Abbott Laboratories Phils, Inc v. Tagaytay Highlands case Alliance of Democratic Labor Org v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA S65 Employees Union, 323 ScRA 392 4. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 261, Lc) UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS/ RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHI primacy of union constitution and by laws LCP Art, 249; (former 274); a. Nature of Relathonship © Heirs of Cruzv. GR, 30cRA 917 b. Issues Admission and Discipline of Members (259 3); (251) ‘+ USTFaculty Union vs Bitonlo, G.R, No, 131235, Nov. 16, 999, ‘+ UsTvs. Samahiang MAnggagagawa ng UST, G.R. No. 169940, Sept 14, 2009, ‘© Montano vs Verceles, G.R. No, 168583 4. Retention of membership intra-union relations; Rules, Book V, Rules XI-XinDiscipline ‘= Villa v.Inciong 121 SCRA 444 Due Process Rules (293 and 2776) ‘© Bugay v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MAR 4 SCRA Election officers- Qualifications, Manner of Election, Tenure and Compensation (Art, 241 [c.f and) = Cruzvs, Calleja, 188 SCRA S20 f. Voters Uist ‘© Tancincov. Calleja 157 SCRA 203 © UST Faculty Union v.Bitonlo, 318 SCRA 185 ‘& Disqualified Candidate ‘= Manaladv. Trajano, 174 SCRA 322 h. Expulsion Remedy ‘= Kapisanan ete. v.Trajano, 134 SCRA 236 Election invalid Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, 165 SCRA 239 ‘Major Policy Matter (Art. 249 d) ‘= Hal v. CiR, 236 SCRA 112 kk. Union Funds (249 ghi.m.n.o and 288) Souree-payment attorney's fees Pacific Banking Corp. v. Clave, 128 SCRA 112 im. Examination of books (Art.288) ‘© Duyagy. Inciong, 8 SCRA 522 1n.Union Dues + Rodrigue v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, 165 SCRA 239 ‘0. Source-payment-special assessment (art 249 (min) fo) + Palacol v.Calles, 182 SCRA 710 © ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. 304 SCRA 433 1+ National Brewery and Allied Industrial Labor Union vs, MC, 8 SCRA 805, 1p. Mandatory Activity (Art 2490) Definition 1+ Vengco v. Trajano 173 SCRA 155 ‘CBA negotiation ‘© Galvadores v Trajano, 144 SCRA 138 ‘Union information (249 p) Union officer-obligation Continental Cement Corp. ‘+ Labor Union v. Continental Cement 189SCRA 134 UL Attomey’s fees ‘+ Gabriel vs. Secretary of Labor, 328 SCRA 247 [2000] Enforcement and Remedies-Procedure and Sanctions (249 last par and 232), \w, Jurisdition-Exhaustion Internal Remedies ‘+ Rodriquez v. 8LR, 165 SCRA 239 © Diamone v. DOLE, 327 SCRA 282 x Remedy: ‘© Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap v.Trajano, 134 SCRA 236 ee LABOR ORGANIZATION/REGULATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS: (Art. 239-248) INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION-PROHIBITION AND REGULATION (Article 283-25) Regulation of Forelgn Assistance; Applicability to Farm Tenants and Rural Workers UNION AFFILIATION: LOCAL AND PARENT UNION RELATIONS (ILO no. 87. Art. 5,) Purpose of: Nature of Relations; Art. 218 c} Labor Code ‘2. Nature of Relationship + Tropical Hut, et. Tropical Hut Food Market, etc, 181 SCRA 373 ‘Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp, 318 SCRA 62 bb. Effect-Legal Personality ‘© Adamson ete v. Adamson, 127 SCRA 268 ”bor Code) © superisorRankand Fe nin afin (25224 254, Labor 4. Rule-Affiiation : ‘© Atlas Lithographic Services, SRA Dela Salle Univ, Medical Center v. LAgUeSI® 294 ‘e, Local Union Disaffilation f. Nature Right Disaffiiation © Volkshel Labor Union v. BLR, 137 SCRA 42 2 ‘© Malayang Samahan ete v. Ramos, ee ‘© Phil, Labor Alliance Council v. BLR, 75 + + Cirtek inte Labor Union ~FFW vs irtek Electronics, GR 190516, 06 June 203 &. Rule-Legality Act-Disaffilation ‘© Phil Skylanders Inc, v. NLRC, 375 SCRA 369 + Alex Ferrer v. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410 ‘© Villar v, Inciong, 121 SCRA 444 F. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT ‘Aaucena, pp. 233-234; Fernande2, 279-280 Department order No. 921 June 1997and Department order No. 4017 February 2003, Republic Act no. 9481 25 May 2007 41) Bargaining unit defined ~ Art. 255, LC 2. Determination of appropriate bargalning unit 2.4 Generally ~ community of interest Exception : Globe doctrine - desire of employees 2.2 ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory employees ~Rep. Act No, 9481 Sec8 amending Art 145, LC 2.3 Effect of Inclusion as members of employees outside the bargaining unit - rep act. 9484, inserting ar, 245-A, LC 6G. CERTIFICATION ELECTION ‘Azucena, pp. 244265; Fernandez, 29037 Department Order No. [21 June 1997], and Department (Order No. 40, (17 February 2003), RVI Republi Act No, 848 (25 May 2007) 4. Role of Employer during certification elections ~ Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 12, inserting Art. 258-4, LC 2. Other kinds of recognition of employee representatives excluding certification elections 2.1 Direct certification -not allowed 2.2 Voluntary ecognition, Dept. Order No. 9, Rule X 2.3 Consent election, DO, Ri 5 (ee); DO 40R8 S10 Effect of consent election: DOORS. $23, 3. Certification election and procedure ‘Aut. 256-257, LC; B5 RS S1-9, RR, Dept. Order No. 40[2003}, Rule 8 and 9 Rep. Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007], Secs. 10nd 11 3.1 Definition and nature of CE~ 85 R1St [i IRR; 009, Ri (dd) Exclusive bargaining representative: Dept. Order DOLE 40 [2003] ‘s_ NUHRWRAIN ~ Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs, See. of Labor, BUR ‘+ Holiday Inn Manila Pavillon Hotel Labor Union vs Acesite Phils. GR No. 1asat 3.2 Who may, and where to file petition for CE BSRSS1-2, 009 Rule x! Republic act na, 9481 Sec 10, amending Art 256, LC 3.2.1 challenging the petition for CE3.3 When tofile petition for CE-DO40 R8S3 33.1 unorganized establishment at any time (85 RS 3-6, RR) Rep. Act No, 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 257, LC 33.2. Morganked establishment Rep, Act No, 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 256, LC ‘2. No duly registered CBA at any time > b) With duly registered CBA 1) Contract bar rule - only during freedom period (Art. 232, LC; BS RS $4, IRR) ‘© FVCLabor Union-PGTWO vs. Sama Samang Nagkakaisang Mangggagawa s2 FVC- ‘SIGLO, GR 176249, 27 Novernber 2009, 2) One-year bar rule (85 RS $3, 1RR) +3) Deadlock bar rule (85 R5 $3, IRR) 4) Denial of Petition for Certification Election; ‘4. Grounds for denial: Dept Order No. 40, R8$14-15 4.2 Appellate procedure incase of denial '5) Procedure in the conduct of certification elections Dept. order no. 40, 89 Sections 1-20 ‘5.1 Raffle and pre-election conference '5.2 Qualification of voters; Inlusion-exclusion proceedings May probationary employees vote In the certification elections, the CCBA provision explicitly excludes them in the vote? '» NUHRWRAIN — Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs Sec. of Labor, GR. No. 181531 5,3 Voting paper 5.4 Challenging the votes; on the spot questions 5,5 Canvass of votes 5.6 certification of collective bargaining agent 6) Run-off elections —009, Rule Xl; Dept order No. 40,810 7) Failure of elections ~Dept order No. 4017 and 18 HINTER-UNION AND INTRA-UNION DISPUTES DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003, 4, What are inter- of intra-union disputes [D040 $1821, ‘QUESTION: In cases where there are two contencing factions of officers in an inter-union dispute (ofthe malorty union), may the employer unilaterally refuse toremit union dues toon the pretext that there isan or-gcing intr-union dispute between the two factions? Is the non- emittance of union dues constitutive of ULP as an interference In internal affairs ofthe Union? De la Salle University vs. De la Salle University Employees Association. G.R. No. 169254, 23 ‘August 2012 2. What are effects of pendency of inter-orintra-union disputes [D040 53) '3. Who may file an inter- or intra-union disputes (D040, s4). 4. Where to file inter-orintra-union disputes. |. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ‘Azucena 199-233) Department order No.9 [21 June 1997] Department order No. 4 [17 February 2003] 1 Duty to bargain collectively 1.1. Defined b. Two kinds of bargaini ‘Single enterprise bargalning- one where any voluntary recognized or certified labor ‘union may demand negotiations with its emplayer for terms and conditions of work ‘cavering, employees In the bargaining unit concerned. ‘Multiple Employer Bargaining - One where a legitimate labor union and employer may ‘agree in vrting to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining provided: 1°anions who are incumbent exclusives bargaining agents may rimate labor | a te in multi-employer bargaining. participate and negotial counterpart legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining t-employer bargaining; and {2} only employers f agents may participate and negotiate in mul (3) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer Cle who consent to multi- ‘employer bargaining may participate in multi-employer bargaining. 1.2 When duty to bargaln exists/begins - 1.2.1 Inthe absence of a CBA~ Art. 251, LC 122 Existence of a CBA - only during freedom period, Art. 253, LC 13 Effect of refusal to bargain - constitutes ULP under Art. 258 (8) ‘© Divine Word Univ. vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 759 * Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587 (2000) 1.4 When duty to bargain ceases 115 standard of conduct required Surface bargaining * Standard chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs Secretary Nieves Confesor and Standard Chartered Bank GR No, 12497 June 16 2004 Individual Bargaining ‘+ Insular life Assurance Employees: NATO Vs, Insular life Assurance Ltd., 76 SCRA 50 2. What are bargalnable issues Art, 252 LC 3. Bargaining Deadlock 3.1 Whenis there a deadlock in collective bargaining 3.2 difference between economic and non-economic provisions 3.3 remedies- Notice of strike or notice of lock-out ~ 30-day cooling period and 7-day strike ban J. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT Department order No, [21 June 1997] and Department order No. 40 [27 February 2003) 1. Definition - 85 R4 $1 (IRR ‘© Davao Integrated Port vs. Abarquez, 220SCRA 193, 2. Contents - supra, RR 2.1 Mandatory subjects 2) Compliance with minimum labor standards; whats effect of sub-standard contract ‘+ REM Corp Flour Ovsion vs. KAMPL-NAFLU-KMU, GR No, 162324, 04 February 2069, +) Grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration + San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 204 SCRA 1 (1999) )No strike of No lock out cause ‘+ Malayang Samahan ng Mangeagawa sa M Grenfield vs Ramos, 326 SCRA 428 2.2 Union Dues vs. Agency fees/ special assesments; check off ‘Art 241 (Art. 222 (b} ‘+ Palacol vs. Calleja Feb 26 1990 EFFECT IF ER FAILS TO IMPLEMENT CHECK OFF ‘© Holy Cross of Davao vs Joaquin 263 SCRA 358 2.3 Union security clauses: nature and kinds Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. 8°! Employees Union - Davao Chapter GR no. 164301, August 10, 2010 Termination due to union securty clause "+ Olvido vs CA, $36 ScRA 81/2007] ‘+ _Inquilo vs First Philippines Scales, 88 SCRA 471 2.4 Signing bonus + Caltex refinery, supra 279 SCRA 218in Part A Section 2.4) ‘BPI vs BPI Employees Union, G.R. No. 158678, Aug. 22, 2012 En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi ‘Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013 ‘© National Union of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) ~ Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc, G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014 3. Signing and ratification ‘+ ALU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178 4. Effect: 1 With respect to suecessor-employer ‘* E,Razonvs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1 ‘© Metrobank Union vs, NLRC, 226 SCRA 268 4.2 With respect to a change in exclusive bargaining agent ~ Substitutionary Doctrine ‘© Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI Ees Union, 23 SCRA 465 Procedure in registration of CBA Art. 23, LC; BS R9 Si, IRR DO 9,Rule XVI Secs. 1-5 6. Scope of agreement, who may aval benefits ‘¢ Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs San Miguel Brewery © New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC 7. Duration of the CBA "7.1 economic provisions of the CBA: 3 years DUTY OF THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PENDING RENEGOTIATION. ~ ‘© General Milling Corporation vs General Miling Corporation Independent Labor Union, GR No. 383122 and 183889 7.2 representation question :5 years “contract bar rule, D0 9 Rule XVI, Sect May partes negotiate and agree to extend term of exclusive bargaining status of majority union? yee tEVC Labor Union ~ Phil Transport and General Workers Org vs Sama-samang Nagkaksisang ‘Maggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity, GR No. 176243, Nov 27 2009 7.3 Retroactivity = ‘+ Union of filipino Employees vs NLRC, 23:SCRA 465 ‘+ Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 373 (1999) ‘+ Manila Electrie Company vs. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172 [2000] K.UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. Concept: Article 247, Labor Code. Test to determine ULP “¢sular Life Assurance Co, Lid, Employees Assocation-NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co, Utd,, 37 SCRA 244 [1971] ‘+ De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001) 2. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers, Art. 248 LC 2.1 Interference In the right to self-organization «Hacienda Fatima vs, National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, GR. No, 149440, 28 January 2003 ‘+ Prince Transport, ne. vs. Garea, ett. G.R. No, 167291, 12 January 2034 2014 ULP CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS ORCHESTRATED ACTIVITIES TO SUBVERT CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS. ‘© T&H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation et. at. vs. T & H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Warkers Union, et. at, G.R. No. 191744,26 February 2014, J. Mendoza. 2.2 Refusal to bargain collectively ‘+ Divine World vs, Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759 [1992] 2.3 Gross violation of the CBA; need not be limited to economic provisions if ‘GROSS PER SE ‘+ Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs, Bayer Philippines. GR No. 162943, 24 Question: Isa lumpsum amount in liew of wage increases during CBA Negotiations tantamount to bargaining in bad faith? ‘+ _Tabangao Shel Refinery Employees Association vs, Pipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No, 170007, 07 April 2014, 3. Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations, Art. 249 LC 3:1 Interference in the employee's right to self-organization orto discriminate against him, : : ‘Manila Mandarin employees union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368 (1987) 4. When not ULP: * General Santos Coca-cola Plan Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. Coca Cola Bottles et al, GR 178647, 13 February 2009 ‘Suspension of CBA due to financial losses not ULP: * Mens Mining Crp. Employees Astcitior, et lv. Marla Mining Corp, et al, G.R. Nos. 178222-23,.29, September 2010 LL STRIKES, PICKETING AND Lock-oUTS. ‘Azucena, pp. 292-385 Art. 263-266, Labor Code Rule 8 Secs. 1-16, Implementing Rules and Regulations. Dept. Order No. 9 [3997], Rule XX, ‘Secs. 1-14 Department Order no, 40 (17 February 2008) 1. Constitutional basis and definition 0 49, $i, R2 * Association ofnependent Unions inthe Phils vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 219 (1999) 1.1 Mass leave is not equivalent toa strike. — + Alex. Naranjo, etat. vs. Biomedical Health Care, Ince. at. 6.8 No, 193789, 19 September 2012 2. Who may declare a strike or lock-out; when it may be decta Ya See. 1.2 185 RB'S2 IRR. Dept. Order No. 9, Rule ‘3. Requlsites for Vaid Strike or Lockout: Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII: Sec. 1 ‘First City Interlinks vs. Roldan-Confessor, 272 SERA 124 [1997] ‘+ Pilipino Telephone Corp vs. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA), $25 SCRA 361 (2007) * Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Association (TMPCWA| vs: NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 [2007} SIX CATEGORIES OF ILLEGAL STRIKE; * Toyota Motor Phils Worker's Assn. (TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 371 (2007 3.1 Lawl purpose 3.1.1 Economic strike/lock out; Deadlock. defined ‘= Capitol Medical Center Aliance vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA S03 [1997] 3.1.2 ULP strike/lock-out and Arts, 248-249, LC Filing of petition for cancellation of Union's registration Is not per a¢ an actof ULP * Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLAC, 317 SCRA 689 (1999) 2