You are on page 1of 28

1 2 3 4

Case Parties and Work or business of the Company Work or task of the Complainant Is there an employee-employer
Case No relationship
1
Petitioner
Insular Life agent , solicit within the Philippines No employer-employee
application for insurance policies & relationship
annunuties in accordance with rules
and regulations of the company Reason:
Not every form of control
Respondent
Melecio T. Basiao
Case No.
VI-0010-83
2
Petitioner
Insular Life agent , solicit within the Philippines No employer-employee
application for insurance policies & relationship
annunuties in accordance with rules
and regulations of the company
oppointed as acting Unit manager
Respondent
Pantaleon
Delos Reyes
3
Petitioner There is an employer-employee
RISC relationship
Reason:
Control test is present which
reflects the existence to control
Respondent over her functions which is the
Erlinda Castaneda company cook very indication of the existence
of employer -employee
relationship
2. Castaneda was a regular
employee of said form because
she does cater exclusively to the
personal comfort of Mr. Tan and
his family but serving the personal
comfort and enjoyment of the
family in the home of employer
4
Petitioner
Coca Cola Bottling No employer-employee
Company relationship
Reason:
The four fold test in determining
the existence of employer-
Respondent employee relationship was not
Do.c Dean N. Climaco medical doctor hired by the pet. present; they are ; selection and
engagement, payment of wage ,
power of dismissal and power of
control
5
Petitioner
Lopez concessionare lady keeper taskef in manning the
ladies room
Respondent
Bodega City
6
Petitioner
Jeromie D. Escasinas
Evan Rigor Singco
Respondent
Jessica Joyce Pepito
Shagrilla Mactan Island
Resort
5
Decision of the Supreme Court
Supreme court ruled infavor of
Insular Life. Complaint of Basiao
was dismissed. Basioa was not
an employee of the petitioner but
as a commission agent , an
independent contractor for unpaid
commission shoul;d have been
litigated in an ordinary civil action
Rules and regualtions merely serve
serves as guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired
result. It does not dictate the means or
method to be employed in
Supreme Court infavor of Castaneda.
- the mere fact that the housekeeper
or domestic servant in the staff houses
of an industrial
Supreme court ruled in favor of Coca Cola
Bottling Company
1 2 3
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
1
No unfair abor practice because under
Petitioner the law contract out jobs was valid
exercise of management prerogative to
General Santos Coca-Cola meet exigent circumstances.
Plant Free Workers Union-
Respondent
Coke General Santos, CA &
NLRC
2
Petitioner
Employees Union of Bayer Yes there is an unfair labor because Article
Phils. FFW et., al 253 of the Labor Code provides that where there
is a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shall
mean that either the party shall terminate or
modify such agreement during its lifetime.
The employer is not allowed to rescind
Respondent unilaterally its CBA with the SEBA it previously
Bayer Philippines Inc. Dieter contracted with, and decide to bargain with a
Lonishem, et.al different group it there is no legitimate reason
of doing without following the procedure.
Case No.162943 This act violated unfair labor practice.
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
3
Petitioner
Insular life assurance Co. LTD Yes, there was an unfair labor practice. The ff.
Employee Association NATU acts constituted Unfair Labor Practice.
FGU Insurance group workers 1.) employer notified absent employees
& Employees Association- individually during a strike , unproductive
NATU, and Insurance Life efforts at collective bargaining - active inter-
Building Employees ference with the right of collective bargaining
Association through dealing with the employees individually
instead of through their collective bargaining
representative.
Respondent 2. ) Individual solicitation of the employees
The Insular Life Assurance or visiting their homes, with the employer or
Co., LTD, FGU Insurance Group his rep. urging the employees to cease union
Jose M. Olbes activity or cease striking
3. ) offering reinstatement and attempted to
bribe the strikers with comfortabe cots, free
coffee and occasional movies overtime pay'
"work performed in excess of eight hours", a
arrangement for their families s they can
abandon the strike and return - guilty of strike
breaking and or union busting
4
Petitioner No, there was no Unfair Labor practice
Lakas Manggagawang because the respondent did not violate
Makabayan the terms of the Return to work
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
agreement negotiated after the first
strike. All the strikers admitted back to
work except for the 4 who have adminis
trative case.
Respondent The companies refusal to accede to the
Meralco demands of Lakas appears to be
justified since there is no showing that
Case No. ULP No. 4951 these companies were I n the same state
of financial and economic affairs.
5
Petitioner Yes there is unfair labor practice . Refusal
Colegio De San Juan de to bargain in good faith with the
Letran respondent renders the petitioner
the guilty of unfair labor practice
Reason:
The company refuse to make counter
Respondent proposal to the union's proposed CBA, they
Association of Employees dont even bother to submit an answer to
Faculty of Letran the bargaining proposals of the union
Eleonor Ambas which is a clear evasion of the duty to
bargain collectively and show a lack of
sincere desire to negotiate which constitute
unfair labor practice .
6
Petitioner No unfair labor practice because the
GSWU- NAFLU (KMU) closure or cessation of business
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
operations was due to serious business
losesses or financial reverses and not by
any alleged anti union position.
Respondent
NLRC, Galaxie steel corp.
and Ricardo Cheng
Case No. C.A G.R NO. 68669
NLRC NCR C.A NO.
026956-00
7
Petitioner
St. John Colleges There is an unfair labor practice . The act or the
closure was done in bad faith for the purpose
of circumventing the Union's right to collective
bargaining and its member's right to security
Respondent of tenure.
St. John Academy faculty
and Employees Union
Case No. RAB-IV-5-10039
-98-L
8
Petitioner
Norma Mabeza
Yes, there is an Unfair labor practice because
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
of 2 reasons:
1.)respondent act of compelling employees to
sign an instrument indicating rtat the employer
observed labor standards provisions of the law
Respondent when he might have not constitute unfair
Associated Labor Union ( ALU) labor practice.
NLRC
2.) the act of terminating or coercing thaose who
refuse to cooperate with the employer's
scheme
9
Petitioner
Balmar Yes there is unfair labor practice .
Employer's refusal to bargain collectively
constitutes an unfair labor practice which
is present on the case at bar.
Reason:
Respondent The duty to bargain collectively
NLRC as way of performing a mutual obligation
to meet and convene promptly and expe
ditiously for the purpose of negotiating
Case No. 1114-LR-XI-83 aspect like wages, hours of work, and all
other terms and condtions was denied by
the respondent
10
Petitioner No, there is no unfair labor practice.
Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice? If there is no unfair Labor practice ,
Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin
constituted ULP. Reason/Explain
Complex Electronics
Employees Association Reason:
The pull-out of the machinery,
equipment and materials from the
companypremises, which resulted to the
sudden closure of the company was not
Respondent a violation of Section 3 and 8, Rule XIII,
NLRC Book 5 of the Labor code of the Phil. And
the existing CBA.
G.R no.121315
Case Analysis on Unfair Labor Practice
Part III
Submitted by:
Lourdes C. Gacusana Submitted to:
Labor Relations Student
Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
The petition was denied. Supreme court
affirmed the decision of NRC and CA and
found out petitoner was unable to prove its
charge of unfair abor practices. Unfair labor
practice refer to " acts that violate the workers'
right to organize. Its must be related to the
workers' right to self organization and the
observance of a CBA. These acts are not present
on the case at bar.
The petition for review on certiorari is
partly granted . Respondent Bayer Philippines
are found liable for unfair labor practice and
are hereby Ordered to remit to petitioner the
amount of P254,857.15 representing the
collected union dues previously turned-over
to Avelino and Anastacia Remigio.
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
The Supreme court ruled that modification for
The decision in 1971 was affirmed in all other
respects. The mentioned acts by the employer
constituted unfair labor practice.
Supreme Court reverse and set aside the
decision of Court of Industrial relati and new
judgement is rendered holding the respondent
Marcelo Companies not guilty of Unfair labor
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
practice.
Unfair labor pracrtice is present on the
case at bar because of totality of conduct
of the employer shows an evident
attempt to restrain the employees from
fully exercising their rights under the
law. The right to self-organization of
employees must not be interfered
with the employer on the pretext of
exercising management prerogative
of disciplining its employees.
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that
violate the worker's right to organize
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
and are defined in Article 248 and 261
of the Labor Code. The prohibited acts
relate to the worker's right to self-
organization and the observance of
Collective Bargaining Agreement which
is not present on the case at bar.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is ULP.
The labor code does not authorize the
employer to close down the
establishment on the ground of illegal or
excessive demands of the Union.
The closure was done in bad faith for the
of circumventing the Union's right to collective
bargaining and its member's right to security
of tenure.
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
The supreme court ruled that there was
an unfair labor practice because of the
exerted pressure, In the form of
restraint , interference or coercion
against the employees right to institute
concerted action for better terms and
condition of employment as provided
in the labor code of the Philippines.
Supreme Court ruled that there is
unfair labor practice because refusal
by the Balmar to bargain collectively
with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor
practive as mentioned in Article 248 (g)
The pull-out of machinery, equipments
What is the final disposition
on Unfair Labor Practice ?
and materials is called a "runaway shop"
which is defined as an industrial plant
moved by its owner from one location
to another to escape from union labor
regulations or state law.
The Union failed to show that the primary
reason for the closure of the
establishment was due to the union
activities of the employees