JOHN PAUL T.

ROMERO LLB-MBA I

HUMAN RELATIONS IN BUSINESS FINAL REQUIREMENT

CASE NO. 1 Arellano University Employees and Workers Union, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. 502 SCRA 219 (2008) FACTS: An ordinary worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere participation in an illegal strike. The Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and file employees of Arellano University, Inc. (the University), filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP). After several controversies and petitions, a strike was staged. Upon the lifting of the strike, the University filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC issued a Resolution holding that the University was not guilty of ULP. Consequently, the strike was declared illegal. All the employees who participated in the illegal strike were thereafter declared to have lost their employment status. ISSUE: Whether or not an employee is deemed to have lost his employment by mere participation in an illegal strike? HELD: Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, an ordinary striking worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the University adduced photographs showing strikers picketing outside the university premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to meet the, substantially of evidence test applicable in dismissal cases. With respect to the Union officers, as already discuss, their mere participation in the illegal strike warrants their dismissal.

RECOMMENDATION: What I suggest to refrain from such case is for a company to remain union-free, it may sound very ideal for a Philippine setting but this can happen. Remaining union-free means to give competitive pay and excellent benefits, a team environment, open communication, a pleasant work environment, and avoidance of lay-off. The union-free approach is basically a human resource system that by-passes the union and deals directly with the individual workers and his or her needs; and one that could prove to be quite expensive to sustain.

CASE NO. 2 De La Salle University and Dr. Carmelita I. Quebangco v. De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSU-NAFTEU) 584 SCRA 592 (2009) FACTS: It is axiomatic in labor relations that a Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law. In 2001, a splinter group of the De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSUNAFTEU) led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas Group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the then incumbent officers of DLSU-NAFTEU had failed to call for a regular election since 1985. DOLE-NCR held that the holdover authority of DLSU-NAFTEUs incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under and supervision of its Labor Relations Division and subject to pre-election conferences. Even with the conditions for the conduct of elections imposed by the the DOLENCR, DLSU-NAFTEU called for a regular election without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference. The incident prompted the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. The BLR granted the Aliazas groups motion for intervention three days before the intended date of election. The Aliazas group requested the University- to escrow all union dues/agency fees and whatever money considerations deducted from salaries of concerned co-academic personnel until such time that an election of union officials has been scheduled and subsequent elections has been held. DLSU and Quebangcos move prompted DLSU-NAFTEU to file a complaint for

Unfair Labor Practice, claiming that the unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members. The Labor Arbiter dismissed DLSU-NAFTEUs ULP complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the said Order of the NLRC with respect to the-subsuming of ULPs complaint under the certified case, the ULP complaint having been, at the time the NLRC. Third Division Order was issued, already disposed of by the Arbiter and was in fact pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division. ISSUE: Whether or not DLSU and Quebangco is guilty of unfair labor practice? HELD: On the matter raised by DLSU and Quebangco that their acts withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with repondents incumbent set of officers pending the intraunion dispute did not constitute interference, the Court finds for DLSU-NAFTEU. Pending the final resolution of the intra-union dispute, DLSU-NAFTEUs officers remained duly authorized to conduct union affairs. It bears nothing at the time DLSU and Quebangcos questioned moved were adopted, a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. It thus behooved DLSU to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law. Respecting the issue of damages, DLSU-NAFTEU, in its Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, prayed for the award of exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorneys fees. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. While the amount of exemplary damages need to be proved, respondent must show proof of entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the Court may consider awarding exemplary damages. No such damages were prayed for however, hence, the court finds no basis to grant for exemplary damages. RECOMMENDATION: Unfair Labor Practices has been one of the most common problems in a company because of some policies that the company implements and might hurt the employees and its members. What I suggest to solve this problem is to enhance the Quality of Work Life (QWL) by implementing such programs it will ensure that members of a work organization are able to satisfy their most important personal needs through organizational experiences. It will also enable workers and employees to be involved in decision making. In the abovementioned case

there has been a dispute in the rules and implementation of policies where the employees and members have not been properly consulted. If members of a company will be part of decision making and not just hiring an arbiter to settle the dispute then it will increase job satisfaction and worker motivation, which will lead to increased productivity and efficiency.

CASE NO. 3 Fe La Rosa, et al. v. Ambassador Hotel 581 SCRA 340 (2009)

FACTS: Case Law holds that constructive dismissed occurs when there is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. Petitioners Fe La Rosa, Ofelia Vely, Cely Domingo, Jona Natividad and Edgar De Leon (La Rosa et al.), were amployees of respondent Ambassador Hotel. La Rosa et al, filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), several complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and illegal deductions against the hotel and its manager. La Rosa, et al. alleged that their complaints with the Department of Labor, the latter inspected the hotels premises. The hotel was thereafter found to have been violating labor standards laws, consequently after such incident, the management of the hotel retaliated by suspending and/or constructively dismissing them by drastically reducing their work days through the adoption of work reduction/rotation scheme. The hotel however countered that such reduction/rotation scheme was an exercise of its management prerogative dude to business losses. The labor arbiter found the hotel and its manager guilty of illegal dismissal. The hotel appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiters ruling with modification. The hotel appealed and prayed for the issuance of an injunctive writ before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the NLRC decision and dismissed the petitioners complaints, stating that there was no constructive dismissal. ISSUES: Whether or not La Rosa et al. were constructively dismissed?

HELD: Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employers judgment in the conduct of its business. For this reason, the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business of employers. The maw must protect not only the welfare of employees, but also the rights of the employers. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests, especially during business interests, especially during adverse business conditions, management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another provided there is no demotion in the rank or diminution of salary benefits and other privileges and the action is not motivated by discrimination, bad faith, or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control to manage their enterprises effectively. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice. In this case, the Court finds no reason to disturb the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that there was no constructive dismissal. Reassignments made by management pending investigation of violations of company policies and procedures allegedly committed by an employee fall within the ambit of management prerogative. The decision of Quantum Foods to transfer Endico pending investigation was a valid exercise of management prerogative. The decision of Quantum Foods to transfer Endico pending investigation was a valid exercise of management prerogative to discipline its employees. The transfer, while incidental to the charges against Endico, was not meant as a penalty, but rather as a preventive measure to avoid further loss of sales and the destruction of Quantum Foods image and goodwill. It was not designed to be the culmination of the then ongoing administrative investigation against Endico. RECOMMENDATION: For me there is nothing wrong with the management of the Ambassador Hotel because it is the hotels prerogative to implement such. Using various work schedule such as compressed workweek (workers work for 10 hours a day in four-day a week), shorter workweek (workers work for a 32 hour work or a 20% cut in work time), flexitime (when worker s work during a common core time each day but have discretion in forming their own work day from a flexible set of hours outside the core), job sharing (when two or more workers split a 40-hour week job) and telecommuting (when workings do their work at home on a computer that is linked into the office). However, the use of any of the combination of these options should not result to lower salaries and benefits for the workers.

REFERENCES: Issues in human resources management and approaches, 2001 to their solution by Dr. Divina M. Edralin (Full Professor, Business Management Department, DLSU) Chan Robles Virtual Library