LABOR RELATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (ULP)
ULP: NATURE, ASPECTS 5. ASPECTS OF ULP.
1. WHEN AN ACT CONSTITUTES ULP.
Not all unfair acts constitute ULPs. The act complained of as ULP must have a
proximate and causal connection with any of the following rights:
a. Exercise of the right to self-organization;
b. Exercise of the right to collective bargaining; or
c. Compliance with CBA.
2. LABOR CODE PROVISIONS ON ULP.
Under the Labor Code, there are only five (5) provisions related to ULP, to wit:
a. Article 258 - ULPs and procedure for prosecution;
b. Article 259 - ULPs that may be committed by employers;
c. Article 260 - ULPs that may be committed by labor organizations;
d. Article 274 - violations of the CBA are no longer ULPs unless the same
are gross in character
e. Article 278(c) union-busting or actions involving the dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, where the existence of the union is threatened
thereby is a form of ULP.
3. PARTIES WHO/WHICH MAY COMMIT ULP.
A ULP may be committed by an employer or by a labor organization.
On the part of the employer, only the officers and agents of corporations,
associations or partnerships who have actually participated in or authorized or
ratified ULPs are criminally liable.
On the part of the union, only the officers, members of governing boards,
representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who
have actually participated in or authorized or ratified the ULPs are criminally
liable.
4. ELEMENTS OF ULP.
a. There should exist an employer-employee relationship between the
offended party and the offender; and
b. The act complained of must be expressly mentioned and defined in the
Labor Code as an unfair labor practice.
Under Article 258, a ULP has two (2) aspects, namely:
1. Civil aspect; and
2. Criminal aspect.
The civil aspect of ULP includes claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and other affirmative reliefs in a case filed before the Labor
Arbiters. The criminal aspect can only be asserted before the regular court.
ULP BY EMPLOYERS
ARTICLE 259. Unfair labor practices of employers. - It shall be unlawful for an employer
to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
a. To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization;
b. To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join
a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
c. 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;
d. 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;
e. 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.
f. To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for
having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;
g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;
h. 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
i. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
I. ULP NO. 1: INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT OR COERCION OF
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-
ORGANIZATION
1. TEST OF INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION.
 LABOR RELATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (ULP)
In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU v. Insular
Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (G.R. No. L-25291, Jan. 30, 1971), the test of whether
an employer has interfered with or restrained or coerced employees within the
meaning of the law is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which may
reasonably tend to interfere with the free exercise of the employees’ rights. It is
not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact
intimidated or coerced by the statements or threats of the employer if there is a
reasonable inference that the anti-union conduct of the employer does have an
adverse effect on the exercise of the right to self-organization and collective
bargaining.
2. TOTALITY OF CONDUCT DOCTRINE.
The totality of conduct doctrine means that expressions of opinion by an
employer, though innocent in themselves, may be held to constitute an unfair
labor practice because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the
history of the particular employer’s labor relations or anti-union bias or because
of their connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference.
The failure of the employer to ascribe a valid reason therefor may justify an
inference that his unexplained conduct in respect of the particular employee or
employees was inspired by the latter’s union membership and activities. In
ascertaining whether the act of the employer constitutes interference with,
restraint or coercion of the employees’ exercise of their right to self-organization
and collective bargaining, the “totality of conduct doctrine” may be applied.
In General Milling Corporation v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 146728, Feb. 11,
2004), the Supreme Court considered the act of the employer in presenting the
letters by 13 union members signifying their resignation from the union clearly
indicative of the employer’s pressure on its employees, because the letters were
presented to prove that the union no longer enjoyed the support of the workers.
The fact that the resignations of the union members occurred during the
pendency of the case before the Labor Arbiter shows the employer’s desperate
attempt to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the union and indicate that the
employer had interfered with the right of its employees to self-organization.
Because of such act, the employer was declared guilty of ULP.
3. Interference in the employee’s right to self-organization is always ULP.
Formation of a union is never a valid ground to dismiss. It is ULP to
dismiss a union officer or an employee for his union activities.
In Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers –
Food and General Trade (G.R. No. 149440, Jan. 28, 2003), the Supreme
Court held that from the employer’s refusal to bargain to its acts of
economic inducements resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew
from the union, the use of armed guards to prevent the organizers to come
in, and the dismissal of union officials and members, one cannot but
conclude that the employer did not want a union in its hacienda - a clear
interference in the right of the workers to self-organization. Hence, the
employer was held guilty of ULP.
It was likewise held in Insular Life EA-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd., that it is an act of interference for the employer to send
individual letters 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 their union activities or cease striking, constitutes ULP.
II. ULP NO. 2: YELLOW DOG CONTRACT
1. DEFINITION: It is one which exacts from workers as a condition of employment
that they shall not join or belong to a labor organization or attempt to organize one
during their period of employment or that they shall withdraw therefrom in case
they are already members of a labor organization.
III. ULP NO. 3: CONTRACTING OUT OF SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS
1. GENERAL RULE. The act of an employer in having work or certain services
or functions being performed by union members contracted out is not per se ULP
because contracting-out of a job, work or service is clearly an exercise by the
employer of its business judgment and its inherent management rights and
prerogatives.
It is only when the contracting out of a job, work or service being performed by
union members will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization that it shall constitute an unfair labor practice.
 LABOR RELATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (ULP)
Thus, it is not unfair labor practice to contract out work for reasons of business
decline, inadequacy of facilities and equipment, reduction of cost and similar
reasonable grounds.
IV. COMPANY UNION.
It is ULPs 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.
V. DISCRIMINATION
1. COVERAGE OF PROHIBITION. What is prohibited as unfair labor practice
under the law is 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.
2. MATERIALITY OF PURPOSE OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY ACT.
In Manila Pencil Co., Inc. v. CIR, (G.R. No. L-16903, Aug. 31, 1965, 14 SCRA
955) it was ruled that even assuming that business conditions justify the dismissal
of employees, it is a ULP of employer to dismiss permanently only union
members and not non-unionists.
In Manila Railroad Co. v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila
Railroad Co., (G.R. No. L-19728, July 30, 1964) the non-regularization of long-
time employees because of their affiliation with the union while new employees
were immediately regularized was declared an act of discrimination.
VI. FILING OF CHARGES OR GIVING OF TESTIMONY
1. It is ULP for an employer to dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give
testimony under the Labor Code. It is the only ULP not required to be related to
employee’s exercise of the right to self-organization and collective bargaining.
In Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Baldo, (G.R. No. L-17739, Dec. 24, 1964) it was
declared that an unfair labor practice was committed by the employer when it
dismissed the worker who had testified in the hearing of a certification election
case despite its prior request for the employee not to testify in the said proceeding
accompanied with a promise of being reinstated if he followed said request.
VII. CBA-RELATED ULPs
1. THREE (3) CBA-RELATED ULPs.
a. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed in the Labor Code.
b. 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.
c. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
2. Violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be
treated as an unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the CBA.
Gross violations of CBA shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with
the economic provisions of such agreement.
3. The act of the employer in refusing to implement the negotiated wage increase
stipulated in the CBA, which increase is intended to be distinct and separate from any
other benefits or privileges that may be forthcoming to the employees, is an unfair labor
practice. Refusal for a considerable number of years to give salary adjustments
according to the improved salary scales in the CBA is an unfair labor practice.
ULP OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
ARTICLE 260. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair labor
practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
a. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;
b. 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;
c. To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it
is the representative of the employees;
d. 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;
e. 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
f. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
 LABOR RELATIONS: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (ULP)
I. RESTRAINT AND COERCION OF EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
1. Union may interfere with but not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organize. The significance in the omission of this term lies in
the grant of unrestricted license to the labor organization, its officers, agents or
representatives to interfere with the exercise by the employees of their right to
self-organization. Such interference is not unlawful since without it, no labor
organization can be formed as the act of recruiting and convincing the employees
is definitely an act of interference.
II. DISCRIMINATION
It is ULP for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
1. 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.
2. To terminate an employee’s union membership on any ground other than the usual
terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is
made available to other members.
III. DUTY OF UNION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
1. It is ULP for a duly certified sole and exclusive bargaining union, its officers, agents or
representatives to refuse or violate the duty to bargain collectively with the employer.
The obvious purpose of the law is to ensure that the union will negotiate with
management in good faith and for the purpose of concluding a mutually beneficial
agreement regarding the terms and conditions of their employment relationship.
IV. FEATHERBEDDING DOCTRINE
1. “Featherbedding” Or “Make-Work” refers to the practice, caused and induced by a
union, of hiring more workers than are needed to perform a given work, job or task or
to adopt work procedures which is evidently senseless, wasteful, inefficient and without
legitimate justifications since it is meant purely for the purpose of employing additional
workers than are necessary. This is resorted to by the union as a response to the laying-
off of workers occasioned by their obsolescence because of the introduction of
machines, robots or new and innovative technological changes and improvements in
the workplace or as required by minimum health and safety standards, among other
reasons. Its purpose is to unduly secure the jobs of the workers.
2. The requisites for featherbedding are as follows:
1. The labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives have caused or
attempted to cause an employer either:
a. to pay or agree to pay any money, including the demand for fee for union
negotiations; or
b. to deliver or agree to deliver any things of value;
2. Such demand for payment of money or delivery of things of value is in the nature
of an exaction; and
3. The services contemplated in exchange for the exaction are not actually
performed or will not be performed.
V. DEMAND OR ACCEPTANCE OF NEGOTIATION FEES OR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
1. It is ULP for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives to ask for or
accept negotiation fees or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the settlement
of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute.
VI. VIOLATION OF THE CBA
1. It is ULP for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives to violate a
CBA.
2. COUNTERPART PROVISION. This is the counterpart provision of Article
259(i) regarding the employer’s act of violating a CBA. But it must be noted that
under Article 261 of the Labor Code, violation of the CBA is generally considered
merely a grievable issue. It becomes an unfair labor practice only if the violation is
gross in character which means that there is flagrant and/or malicious refusal to
comply with the economic (as distinguished from non-economic) stipulations in the
CBA. This principle applies not only to the employer but to the labor organization
as well.
VII. CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ULPs OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
1. PERSONS LIABLE. The Labor Code is explicit on who should be held liable for
ULPs committed by labor organizations. It states that only the officers, members of
governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or
organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
practices shall be held criminally liable.