Instruction: Answer in a precise on concise manner. Go straight to the point.

Answer with legal

basis to applicable questions.

1. What are the policy objectives of our labor relations law? Give at least 3

Article 211. Declaration of Policy.(LABOR CODE)

It is the policy of the State:

To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and

negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of
settling labor or industrial disputes;

To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy

and the promotion of social justice and development;

To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;

To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as

union members and as employees;

To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of

labor or industrial disputes;

To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and

To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes

affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the

employers and employees by means of agreements freely entered into through
collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the
power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions
of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code. (As amended by
Section 3, Republic Act No. 6715

2. Employer-employee relationship must exist so that labor relations law may apply within
an enterprise. What are the elements of employer-employee relationship?

(1) Selection and engagement of the employee;

(2) Payment of wages;

(3) Power to dismiss; and

(4) Power to control the employee’s conduct.

 3. What are considered labor disputes? What are the available remedies?

The mere fact that the disputants do not stand in the proximate or reciprocal relation of
employer and employee does not remove the dispute from the category of labor dispute.
The test of whether a labor controversy comes within the definition of a labor dispute
depends on whether it involves or concerns term, conditions of employment or
representation. So a strike to compel dismissal of an antagonistic supervisor; or a
controversy over seniority rights; or a dispute over an asserted duty to work on legal
holidays, fall within the category of labor dispute. Any bona fide controversy concerning
wage, hours or conditions of work or representation constitutes a labor dispute within the
meaning of the Act. To qualify for that status, the controversy must involve or concern the
terms and conditions of employment or pertain to the issue of representation.

Even the question of employer-employee relationship can be considered a “labor-dispute”

Labor Disputes and Remedies: A summary

“Labor Dispute” includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of

employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of
whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

4. In what period was the right of supervisors to self-organization restored? Explain what
happened on that period.

Third period: under the Labor Code as Amended by R.A No. 6715
Apparently the labor sector could not bear losing a right it had enjoyed for more than twenty
years prior to the Labor Code; hence, it sought its restoration through the present amendments.
Taking effect on March 21, 1989, R.A No. 6715 marks the stage in the evolution of the
supervisors’ right to organize.

R.A 6715 presents a compromise formula: retain the ineligibility of managerial

employees but revive the right of supervisory employees to unionize.

Now, under the aegis of R.A No. 6715, the Supreme Court sighs in relief: “This, the right
of supervisory employees to organize under the Industrial peace act is once more recognized
under the present amendments to the Labor Code.

5. Differentiate Managers and Supervisors. Use the law as your basis for differentiation.

Art. 212. Definitions. . . .

(m) “managerial employee” is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign
or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not
falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes
of this Book.

6. Can a confidential employee join a labor union? If not, why?

It is now settled that confidential employees cannot form, join or assist rank-and-file
unions; they cannot even be made to pay agency fees or be subjected to union
security clause since they are not part of the bargaining unit.

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 behind the ineligibility of managerial
employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them.

7. Who are confidential employees?

The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be
considered a confidential employee— that is, the confidential relationship must exist
between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. Confidential employees are
those who
(I) assist or act in a confidential capacity.
(2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the
field of labor relations.

8. The Supreme Court stated the risk of Security guards in forming, joining or assisting a
labor union. Although, they are now allowed to enjoy the right to self-organization, there
are risks involved. State the risks that the Supreme Court said in one case.

Under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a labor organization of
the rank-and-file. Under R.A. No. 6715, they may now freely join a labor
organization of the rank-and-file or that of the supervisory union, depending on their
rank. Aware of risks, the Court further said:

We are aware however of possible consequences in the implementation of the law

in allowing security personnel to join labor unions within the company they serve.

The law is apt to produce divided loyalties in the faithful performance of their duties.
Economic reasons would present the employees concerned with the temptation to
 subordinate their duties to the allegiance they owe the union of which they are
members, aware as they are that it is usually union action that obtains for them
increased pecuniary benefits. (Manila Electric Co. vs. Secretary of Labor and
Employment, G.R No. 91902, May 20, 1991)

9. Explain the concept of the right to self-organization.

CONCEPT OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
This is a key article that offers an inclusionary definition of the right to self-
organization by saying not what it is but what it includes. It include at least two rights:
(1) the right to form Join or assist labor organizations, and
(2) the right to engage in lawful concerted activities. RIGHT TO STRIKE

10. What is ULP?

Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof. – Unfair
labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain
collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual
respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-
management relations.

Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and
management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to
prosecution and punishment as herein provided.

11. State the elements of ULP.

Commission of unfair labor practice at the enterprise level needs the presence of certain
elements: first, there is employer-employee relationship between the offender and the offended;
and second, the act done is expressly defined in the Code as an act of unfair labor practice. The
first element is required because ULP is negation of, a counteraction to, the right to organize
which is available only to employees in relation to their employer. No organizational right can be
negated or assailed if employer-employee relationship is absent in the first place.

The second element is that the act done is prohibited by the Code, specifically in Articles 248
and 261 for an employer and Article 249 for a labor organization. Art. 212(k) emphatically
defines “unfair labor practice” as “any unfair labor practice as expressly defined in this Code.”
Art. 261 amplifies Art. 248(i) by stating that violation of a CBA is unfair labor practice only if the
violation is gross in character.
 12. Can an employer interfere with the right to self-organization of its employees? Why or
why not?

Article 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit
any of the following unfair labor practice:

To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

13. State four ULP of employer stated under Article 248 of the Labor Code.

Article 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful for an

employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:

To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization;

To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join

a labor organization or shall with-draw from one to which he belongs;

To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such
will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization;

To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or

administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other
support to it or its organizers or supporters;

To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.

To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee

for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;

To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of
the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

14. State three ULP of a labor organization stated under Article 249 of the Labor Code.

To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.

However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;
 To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee,
including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in
such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground
other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation
of membership is made available to other members;

To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is
the representative of the employees;

To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or

deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services
which are not performed or not to be performed, including the demand for fee for
union negotiations;

To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the
settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

15. Is forced vacation leave initiated by the employer ULP?

Where the vacation leave without pay, which the employer requires employees to take in view of
the economic crisis, is neither malicious, oppressive or vindictive, ULP is not committed.

16. Can an employer ask one of his employees to join a labor organization for him?

Unlawful, 248

17. What is the concept of Totality of Conduct Doctrine? Give one example.

Employer’s Expression of Opinion; Totality of Conduct Doctrine

The doctrine holds that the culpability of employer’s remarks was to be evaluated
not only on the basis of their implications, but against the background of and in
conjunction with collateral circumstances.

(1) Letter to individual employees—It is an act of interference for the employer to

send a letter to all employees notifying them to return to work at a time specified
therein, otherwise new employees would be engaged to perform their jobs.
Individual solicitation of the employees or visiting their homes, with the employer or
his representative urging the employees to cease union activity or cease striking,
constitutes unfair labor practice. All the above-detailed activities are unfair labor
 practices because they tend to undermine the concerted activity of the employees,
an activity to which they are entitled free from the employer's molestation.

(2) Strike-breaking—When the respondent company offered reinstatement and

attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots," "free coffee and occasional
movies," "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours," and
"arrangements" for their families, so they would abandon the strike and return to
work, they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and, consequently, of
unfair labor practice.

(3) Acts violative of right to organize— Violative of the right to organize, form and
join labor organizations are the following acts: the offer of a Christmas bonus to all
"loyal" employees of a company shortly after the making of a request by the union to
bargain; wage increases given for the purpose of mollifying employees after the
employer has refused to bargain with the union, or for the purpose of inducing
striking employees to return to work; the employer's promises of benefits in return
for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union; and the
employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the strike started, to a group of
strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work, they would
receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization, accident insurance, profit-
sharing, and a new building to work in.

(4) Test of interference or coercion—The test of whether an employer has interfered

with and coerced employees within the meaning of subsection (a) (1) is whether the
employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act, and it is not
necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or
coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference
that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-
organization and collective bargaining.

(5) The “totality of conduct” doctrine—the letters of the company president to the
individual strikers should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read
in the light of the preceding and subsequent circumstances. The letters should be
interpreted according to the "totality of conduct doctrine," whereby the culpability of
an employer's remarks has to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit
implications, but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction
with collateral circumstances.

18. If an employer sells his/her business, is the buyer answerable to the current issues
pertaining to labor rights and benefits? Answer with legal basis.

Where the sale of a business enterprise was attended with bad faith, there is no
need to consider the applicability of the rule that labor contracts being in personam
 are not enforceable against the transferee. The latter is in the position of tort-feasor
having been a party likewise responsible for the damage inflicted on the members of
the aggrieved union and therefore cannot justly escape liability.

It is irrational to suppose that a purchaser of a manufacturing enterprise is not aware

of the labor-management situation in the firm he bought.

19. Can an employer close his business without justification just to make his employees who
are members of a labor organization leave their work? Answer with legal basis.

No unlawful

20. Mr. A is an employee of ABC Company; he joined a labor union for purposes of airing
his grievances. He was then required to attend a strike the following week. Is Mr. A
required to join the strike?

A labor organization commits ULP when it restrains or coerces employees in their right to self-
organization. This provision of Art. 249(a) parallels with Art. 248(a). But “interference” is left out.
This deliberate omission is “the equivalent of license of labor organization to engage in those
practices which, at the hands of an employer, would constitute actionable unfair labor practices
by way of “interference.” In other words, a labor
organization may interfere in the employees’ right to self-organization as long as the
interference does not amount to restraint or coercion.

Coercing Participation in Strike

The provision is violated by a union’s restraining or coercing an employee in the exercise of his
right to refuse to participate in or recognize a strike. Similarly, violation is committed when a
union threatens employees with bodily harm in order to force them to strike.