Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ALLIANCE OF NATIONALIST (ANGLO) V. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA G.R. No. 118562, July 5, 1996
participate. During the pre-election conference, PICOP questioned the inclusion of some supervisors in the list of voters and averred that they were classified as managerial employees. MED ARBITER: Held the supervisors and section heads of the petitioner are managerial employees and therefore excluded from the list of voters for purposes of certification election; On appeal, the SECRETARY of Labor: declared them as supervisory employees eligible to vote in the certification election. Whether or not the employees are managerial employees. No. Under ARTICLE 212 (m) Managerial Employees, is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to Hire, Transfer, Suspend, Layoff, Recall, Discharge, Assign or Discipline employees. The job description of the employees show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since they do not lay down company policies. The authority of the subject employees is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated "manager" does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment. (United Pepsi-Cola Supevisory Union vs Laguesma)
In December 1993, SAMANA BAY (Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawang Nagkakaisa sa Manila Bay Spinning Mills and J.P. Coats) decided to disaffiliate from ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization) due to the latters dereliction of duty to promote the welfare of SAMANA BAY and the alleged case of corruption. ANGLO overthrew all officers of the respondent, and appointed new set of officers, for non-remittance of federation dues. ANGLO contended that the disaffiliation was void since the freedom period has not yet set in. MED ARBITER: Declared the disaffiliation void but maintained that the dismissal of officers was illegal; ON APPEAL TO DOLE: Disaffiliation was VALID, Directed the Company (Manila Bay Spinning Mills) to remit the dues directly to SAMANA; MR of ANGLO was DENIED. SC: Dismissed the petition. Whether or not the disaffiliation of SAMANA was valid. Yes. As a rule, a labor union may disaffiliate from the mother union only within the freedom period. (PD 1391 No petition for certification election, for intervention and disaffiliation shall be entertained or given due course except within the 60-day freedom period) However, under ARTICLE 239-A, disaffiliation may be carried out by a vote of 2/3 of its general membership in a meeting duly called for that purpose to dissolve the organization. In addition, with respect to the removal of the officers, a local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. Having its own personality, the mother federation has no license to act independently of the local union. Any act performed by ANGLO affecting the interest and affairs of SAMANA, including the ouster of herein individual private respondent, is rendered without force and effect.
a confidential employee (they did not act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and execute management policies related to labor relations) As to the second issue whether the MedArbiter may validly order the holding of a certification election despite the petitioners appeal pending before the DOLE Secretary against the issuance of the unions registration. ARTICLE 257 mandates that a certification election shall automatically be conducted by the Med-Arbiter upon the filing of a petition by a legitimate labor organization. Nothing is said therein that prohibits such automatic conduct of the certification election if the management appeals on the issue of the validity of the union's registration.
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL AUGUST 2, 2010 BUTOY TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
different plants of the division will divide the employees of the said division, thus greatly diminishing their bargaining leverage. The fact that the three plants are located in three different places, is immaterial. Geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the employees are not sacrificed as demonstrated in UP v. Calleja-Ferrer where all nonacademic rank and file employees of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, Padre Faura, Manila, Los Baos, Laguna and the Visayas were allowed to participate in a certification election.
representative of all the rank and file employee of BENECO (Benguet Electric Cooperative) Thereafter, BELU (Beneco Employees Labor Union) opposed contending it was certified as sole bargaining representative of BENECO. On the other hand, the cooperative filed a motion to dismiss claiming that it is a non-profit electric coop. and the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are members and joint owners of the cooperative. MA: Issued an order allowing the certification election; Respondent Director Ferrer-Calleja affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO.
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL AUGUST 2, 2010 BUTOY TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
period and was able to ascertain the majority of the workers who prefer their union.
Whether or not member-consumers who are employees of BENECO could form, assist or join a labor union. No. The right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof. "Certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners." It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. (Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja)
themselves without proper authority and violated the CSC Circular: prohibition against strikes by government workers causing disruption of public service]
CASE DIGEST IN LABREL AUGUST 2, 2010 BUTOY TAU KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY 2010
In the case of Merlinda Jacinto, she was found guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations; Penalty of reprimand; and reinstatement w/o back salaries. [She claimed that she left the school premises on the day in question, because she "was emotionally and mentally depressed but failed to observe the rules regarding the permission needed from the school authorities and did not file an application for sick leave] Whether or not the decision of CSC, in charging and suspending the petitioners, is convincing. Yes. However, with respect to Jacinto, she is granted with back wages by the SC from the time she was suspended until her actual reinstatement. RATIO: There was no proof that she joined the mass actions which caused prejudice to the school system. On the other hand, petitioners' demand for back wages cannot be granted, for they had given cause for their suspension their unjustified abandonment of classes to the prejudice of their students.
executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. [ARTICLE III SEC 4 and 5 of Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred in by the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. 19 on 17 May 1949]
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V. TAGAYTAY EMPLOYEES UNION G.R. No. 142000, January 22, 2003
Respondent (THEU-Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union) labor organization filed a petition for CE to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI (Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Incorporated). The petitioner opposed, claiming that only 71 of 192 were actual rank and file employees the rest were supervisors, resigned, awol etc. MA: Ordered the holding of the CE; DOLE Secretary: Dismissed the CE due to clear absence of community or mutuality of interests; Motion for Reconsideration to DOLE Undersecretary by Union: Remanded the case to MA for the conduct of CE and simply removed the disqualified employees rather than disregard the legitimate status of the union. SC: Denied petition. Whether or not the disqualified employees could simply be removed from the roster instead of resolving the legitimacy of the unions status. Yes. Under ARTICLE 239, the inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated therein. Moreover, the legitimacy of herein union cannot be questioned since after a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation (BOOK V, Rule IV, Section 8)
4 of 4