Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Calleja-Ferrer (1988)
Paras, J.
ISSUES:
SUMMARY: BELYCA Corporation is engaged in piggery, poultry raising and the
planting of agricultural crops. ALU seeks direct
1. Was the
proposed
bargaining
unit (ALU-TUCP) an
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all rank-and-file employees
of its
livestock
and agro division.
bargaining
unit? YES
However, BELYCA claims that the bargaining unit must include all its workers (i.e.appropriate
not only piggery
and poultry
but also
cinemas and supermarkets) to prevent the creation of fragmented bargaining units from a single one.
ALU:
status, such as temporary, seasonal and probationary
o a) there is no CBA between BELYCA and any other existing
employees"
legitimate labor union;
B. In Democratic Labor v. Cebu Stevedoring, the Court
o b) no certification election was held within the 12 months
emphasized the importance of the fourth factor:
prior to the filing of the petition;
employment status, such as temporary, seasonal and
o c) more than a majority of BELYCAs rank-and-file
probationary
employees in the proposed bargaining unit or 183 as of the
C. The test of proper grouping of employees when it comes to
date of the filing, have signed membership with ALU.
bargaining unit is the COMMUNITY AND MUTUALITY OF
BELYCA:
INTEREST.
o a) due to the nature of its business, very few of its
In the case at bar, the employees of the livestock and agro division
of BELYCA perform work entirely different from those performed by
employees in the supermarts and cinema.
o Among others, the noted differences are: their working
conditions, hours of work, rates of pay, including the
categories of their positions and employment status. Due
to the nature of the business in which its livestock-agro
division is engaged very few of its employees in the
division are permanent, the overwhelming majority of
which are seasonal and casual and not regular employees.
o Definitely, they have very little in common with the
employees of the supermarts and cinemas. To lump all the
employees of BELYCA in its integrated business concerns
cannot result in an efficacious bargaining unit comprised of
constituents enjoying a community or mutuality of interest.
o Undeniably, the rank and file employees of the livestockagro division constitute a bargaining unit that satisfies both
requirements of classification according to employment
status and of the substantial similarity of work and duties
which will ultimately assure its members the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights.
Another labor union, the All UP Workers Union (All UP) filed a motion
for intervention.
o
It alleged that its membership covers both academic and nonacademic personnel, and that it aims to unite all rank-and-file
employees in one union.
o
It assented to the holding of the certification election provided
the appropriate organizational unit was first clearly defined.
o
It observed in this connection that the Research, Extension
and Professorial Staff (REPS), who are academic non-teaching
personnel, should not be deemed part of the organizational
unit.
UPs General Counsel was of the stand that there should be two unions
one for the non-academic/administrative, and one for the academic
personnel.
She thus ordered the holding of a certification among all rankand-file employees, teaching and non-teaching.
At the pre-election conference, UP sought clarification of the term
rank-and-file. It claimed that there were some teaching and nono
High Level Employee is one whose functions are normally considered policy
determining, managerial or one whose duties are highly confidential in nature.
A managerial function refers to the exercise of powers such as:
A careful perusal of the University Code shows that the policy- making
powers of the Council are limited to academic matters, namely,
prescribing courses of study and rules of discipline, fixing student
admission and graduation requirements, recommending to the Board of
Regents the conferment of degrees, and disciplinary power over
students.
On the other hand, the policies referred to in the definition of high level
employees refers to labor-related policies like hiring, firing, discipline,
labor standards and benefits, and terms and conditions of employment.
MR filed by UP was denied.
ISSUES + RULING:
Are the professors, associate professors and assistant professors high-level
employees? NO.
1.
Med-Arbiter: Denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the
unit which private respondent sought to represent is inappropriate.
SOLE: ruled against the dismissal of the petition and directed the conduct of
two separate certification elections for the teaching and the non-teaching
personnel
CA: Dismissed petition, As to the purported commingling of managerial,
supervisory, and rank-and-file employees in private respondents membership,
it held that the Toyota ruling is inapplicable because the vice-principals,
department head, and coordinators are neither supervisory nor managerial
employees. Anent the alleged mixture of teaching and non-teaching personnel,
the CA agreed with petitioner that the nature of the formers work does not
coincide with that of the latter.
ISSUES/HELD:
WON a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the
labor organizations membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rankand-file employees. NO
WON PCE should have been dismissed on the ground that private respondent is
not qualified to file such petition for its failure to qualify as a legitimate labor
organization, the basic qualification of which is the representation of an
appropriate bargaining unit. NO
RATIO:
1. See case for evolution of jurisprudence regarding legal effects of
commingling of supervisory employees with rank and file employees in
the same union. Bottomline is that the jurisprudence has reiterated
that the alleged inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor
organization seeking to represent the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor
organization. This was due to DO No. 9 which applies in this case which
does not provide for any legal effects and instead requires a mere
description of the bargaining unit. This is an abandonment of the old
Toyota and Dunlop rulings which provided that such labor organization
Also following the doctrine laid down in Kawashima and SMCC-Super, it must be
stressed that petitioner cannot collaterally attack the legitimacy of private
respondent by praying for the dismissal of the petition for certification election
(bystander doctrine).
1 KIOK LOY, doing business under the name and style SWEDEN ICE CREAM PLANT, petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA
(KILUSAN),
ISSUES/HELD:
1. WON THE COMPANY IS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. (YES)
Collective bargaining, which is defined as negotiations towards a
collective agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks under
the New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between
labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable
industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and
the Union and is characterized as a legal obligation.
o
Art. 249 (g) of the Labor Code even makes it an unfair labor
practice for an employer to refuse to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of
work, and all other terms and conditions of employment
Company contends that CBA is null and void because: 1) it lacks the
companys consent and; 2) the company will face the prospect of
closing down since it has to pay a staggering amount of economic
benefits
Court said: Such a stand and the evidence in support thereof should
have been presented before the Labor Arbiter which is the proper
forum for the purpose.
Courts closing remarks: Although its not obligatory upon either side to
accept/agree to the proposals of the other, an erring party should not be
tolerated and allowed with impunity to resort to schemes feigning negotiations
by going through empty gestures.
Dispositive: PETITION DISMISSED.
TABIGUE v. INTERCO
December 23, 2009 || J. Carpio Morales
By: Rose Ann
SUMMARY:
Tabigue et al filed a notice of preventive mediation against INTERCO. The parties
failed to settle. It was elevated to Voluntary arbitration. However, INTERCO provided
a letter by the union president stating that Tabigue et al are not authorized. The
case did not proceed to voluntary arbitration due to this. CA and SC upheld this. The
petitioners were not authorized to represent the union, hence voluntary arbitration
shall not prosper.
DOCTRINE:
The parties to a CBA shall name or designate their respective representatives to the
grievance machinery and if the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall
automatically be referred to the voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by
parties to a CBA. Consequently only disputes involving the union and the company
shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
The right of any employee or group of employees to, at any time, present
grievances to the employer does not imply the right to submit the same to voluntary
arbitration.
FACTS:
Petitioners Juanito Tabigue and 19 employees of International Copra Export
Corporation (INTERCO) filed a Notice of Preventive Mediation with the DOLENCMB
against INTERCO for violation of CBA and failure to sit on the grievance
conference/meeting.
It was elevated to voluntary arbitration after the parties failed to reach a settlement.
NCMB set a date for them to agree on a Voluntary Arbitrator.
Before they could meet, INTERCO presented before the NCMB a letter of Genaro TAN,
president of the INTERCO Employees/Laborers Union which Tabigue et al are
members.
The letter addressed to plant manager Engr. Paterno C. TANGENTE stated that
Tabigue et al are not duly authorized by the board or the officers to represent the
union, hence... all actions, representations or agreements made by these people
with the management will not be honored or recognized by the union.
INTERCO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners sent Tan
and Tangente a Notice to Arbitrate. No settlement reached. NCMB Director Teodorico
O. Yosores wrote petitioner Alex Bibat and Tangente regarding the lack of willingness
of both parties to submit to voluntary arbitration, which is a pre-requisite to submit
the case. Under the CBA, the union is an indispensable party to a voluntary
arbitration. Since Tan informed INTERCO that the union had not authorized the
petitioners to represent it, it would be absurd to bring the case to voluntary
arbitration.
The NCMB Director concluded that the demand of petitioners to submit the issues to
voluntary arbitration cannot be granted. MR denied.
CA denied appeal as the NCMB is not a quasi-judicial agency but merely a
conciliatory body. The NCMBs decisions or that of its authorized officer cannot be
appealed either through Rule 43 or Rule 65 of the ROC. Other infirmities were noted
like insufficient docket fees, decision of NCMB not certified, and incomplete
verification and non-forum shopping. CA denied MR. Petition for Review on Certiorari
with SC.
Petitioners:
The case falls within the revised procedural guidelines in the conduct of voluntary
arbitration proceedings. NCMB is a quasi-judicial agency. Its decisions are appealable
to the CA. Labor cases are not resolved by technicalities.
ISSUE
WON the case can proceed to voluntary arbitration notwithstanding the lack of
authority of Tabigue et al from the union. No.
RATIO
[Procedural] CA has no jurisdiction; NCMB not a QJA
Sec 7 of Rule 43 of ROC provides that failure to comply with the requirements
regarding the payment of docket fees, etc shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
of the petition. Even if this is relaxed, the CAs decision would be sustained. Sec 9
(3) of BP129 provides that the CA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions.
An agency exercises judicial function where it has the power to determine what the
law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine
these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. As per NCMBs
functions under Sec 22 of EO 126 (Reorganization Act of the Ministry of Labor and
Employment), it cannot be considered a quasi-judicial agency.
[Substantive] Voluntary arbitration cannot proceed
Petitioners argument that unsettled grievances should be referred to voluntary
arbitration as per the CBA does not lie. The CBA states:
In case of any dispute arising from the interpretation or implementation of this
Agreement or any matter affecting the relations of Labor and Management, the
UNION and the COMPANY agree to exhaust all possibilities of conciliation through
the grievance machinery. The committee shall resolve all problems submitted to it
within fifteen (15) days after the problems have been discussed by the members. If
the dispute or grievance cannot be settled by the Committee, or if the committee
failed to act on the matter within the period of fifteen (15) days herein stipulated,
the UNION and the COMPANY agree to submit the issue to Voluntary Arbitration.
Selection of the arbitrator shall be made within seven (7) days from the date of
notification by the aggrieved party. The Arbitrator shall be selected by lottery from
four (4) qualified individuals nominated by in equal numbers by both parties taken
from the list of Arbitrators prepared by the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB). If the Company and the Union representatives within ten (10)
days fail to agree on the Arbitrator, the NCMB shall name the Arbitrator. The
decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. However, the
Arbitrator shall not have the authority to change any provisions of the Agreement.
The cost of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties.
Tabigue et al have not been duly authorized to represent the union. As held in Atlas
Farms, Inc. v. NLRC:
x x x Pursuant to Article 260 of the Labor Code, the parties to a CBA shall name
or designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and
if the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to the
voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by parties to a CBA. Consequently only
disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
The SC also did not agree with the petitioners that Art. 255 of the LC (an individual
employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer) is an exception to the exclusiveness of the
representative role of the labor organization/union. The right of any employee or
group of employees to, at any time, present grievances to the employer does not
imply the right to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Nov. 6, 2000: Respondent Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao sent the DOLE a
Notice of Suspension of Operations for a period of 6 months due to severe
and serious business losses.
Domy Rojas, the President of DIHFEUNFL (Union 1) sent respondent a number of
letters asking management to reconsider its decision.
Rojas intimated that the members of the Union were determined to keep their
jobs and were willing to help respondent by suspending re-negotiations of the
CBA, and reducing employee benefits such as:
a. Suspension of the CBA for 10 years, No strike no lock-out shall be
enforced.
b. Pay all the employees their benefits due, and put the length of service
to zero with a minimum hiring rate. Payment of benefits may be on a
staggered basis or as available.
c. Night premium and holiday pays shall be according to law. Overtime
hours rendered shall be offsetted as practiced.
d. Reduce the sick leaves and vacation leaves to 15 days/15days.
e. Emergency leave and birthday off are hereby waived.
f.
Duty meal allowance is fixed at P30.00 only. No more midnight snacks
and double meal allowance. The cook drinks be stopped as practiced.
g. We will shoulder 50% of the group health insurance and family medical
allowance be reduced to 1,500.00 instead of 3,000.00.
h. The practice of bringing home our uniforms for laundry be continued.
i.
Fixed manning shall be implemented, the rest of manpower
requirements maybe sourced thru WAP and casual hiring. Manpower
for fixed manning shall be 145 rank-and-file union members.
j.
Union will cooperate fully on strict implementation of house rules in
order to attain desired productivity and discipline. The union will not
tolerate problem members.
k. The union in its desire to be of utmost service would adopt multitasking for the hotel to be more competitive.
Jan. 2001: the Union, through Rojas, submitted to respondent a Manifesto
concretizing their earlier proposals.
After series of negotiations, the respondent and Union signed a MOA for
the re-opening of the hotel subject to the concessions made by the
Union in their Manifesto.
Respondent downsized its manpower structure to 100 (from 145) rank-and-file
employees in accordance with the MOA and a new pay scale was made.
Retained employees individually signed a "Reconfirmation of Employment
which embodied the new terms and conditions of their continued employment.
Each employee was assisted by Rojas who co-signed the document.
June 15, 2001: Hotel resumed its business operations.
Aug. 22, 2002: Darius Joves and Debbie Planas, claiming to be local
officers of the National Federation of Labor (NFL) filed a Notice of
Mediation before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB). The issue raised was the "Diminution of wages and other benefits
through unlawful MOA.
a.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
In the Notice it was stated that the union involved was DARIUS
JOVES/DEBBIE PLANAS et al, National Federation of Labor
Aug. 29, 2002: NCMB called Joves and respondent to a preliminary conference.
In said conference, the Submission Agreement signed by respondent and Joves,
assisted by Atty. Cullo, wherein they chose the accredited voluntary arbitrator
(AVA Olvida), Joves indicated that he represented IHEU-NFL instead of
NFL.
a. To support his authority to file, Joves presented several SPA (from union
members) w/c were not notarized and undated.
Sept. 2, 2002 or 4 days after, respondent filed a "Manifestation with Motion for a
Second Preliminary Conference" that the persons who filed the instant
complaint in the name of IHEU-NFL had no authority to represent the Union.
During the 2nd conference, Cullo confirmed that the case was filed not
by the IHEU-NFL but by the NFL. When asked to present his authority from
NFL, Cullo admitted that the case was filed by 79 individual employees and
members of the Union named in SPAs.
Respondent filed a motion to withdraw from the proceedings arguing
that the persons who signed the complaint were not the authorized
representatives of the Union indicated in the Submission Agreement
nor were they parties to the MOA.
AVA Olvida denied the motion to withdraw.
a. He ruled that proper party complainant was actually the IHEU-NFL as
the union and not NFL and the other members
b. However, since the NFL is the mother federation of the local union, and
signatory to the existing CBA, it can represent the union, the officers,
the members or union and officers or members.
Cullo, in his pleadings, now started using the caption Insular Hotel
Employess Union-NFL, Complainant.
Respondent demanded inhibition of Olvida for his bias and prejudice. Olvida
complied and voluntarily inhibited himself out of delicadeza. It likewise
reiterated its statance that the members had no standing to file notice of
mediation.
New AVA was selected. AVA Montejo (Olvidas replacement) decided in favor of
Cullo,
a. Declaring the MOA in question as invalid as it is contrary to law and
public policy;
b. Declaring that there is a diminution of the wages and other benefits of
the Union members and officers under the said invalid MOA.
c. Ordering respondent management to immediately reinstate the
workers wage rates and other benefits that they were receiving and
enjoying before the signing of the invalid MOA;
d. Ordering the management respondent to pay attorneys fees.
18. Upon appeal, CA reversed and declared the MOA valid and enforceable. MR
denied hence this petition.
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
W/N the accredited voluntary arbitrator has jurisdiction because the Notice
of Mediation does not mention the name of the local union but only of the
affiliate federation (NFL). NO, complaint for mediation was not filed by the
Union.
A review of the development of the case shows that there has been much
confusion as to the identity of the party which filed the case against respondent.
In the Notice of Mediation filed before the NCMB, it stated that the
union involved was "DARIUS JOVES/DEBBIE PLANAS ET. AL., National
Federation of Labor."
o
In the Submission Agreement, however, it stated that the union
involved was IHEU-NFL
While it is undisputed that a submission agreement was signed by respondent
and IHEU-NFL, then represented by Joves and Cullo, this Court finds that there
are two circumstances which affect its validity:
1. the Notice of Mediation was filed by a party who had no authority to do
so;
2. that respondent had persistently voiced out its objection questioning
the authority of Joves, Cullo and the individual members of the Union to
file the complaint before the NCMB.
Under Section 3, Rule IV of the NCMB Manual of Procedure, only a
certified or duly recognized bargaining agent may file a notice or
request for preventive mediation.
Cullo himself admitted, in a number of pleadings, that the case was
filed not by the Union but by the NFL and individual members of the
Union. Therefore, the NCMB had no jurisdiction to entertain the notice filed
before it.
Even though respondent signed a Submission Agreement, it had immediately
manifested after 4 days its desire to withdraw from the proceedings after it
became apparent that the Union had no part in the complaint.
Respondent cannot be estopped in raising the jurisdictional issue, because it is
basic that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
o
W/N the individual employees and members of the UNION had standing to
file the complaint before the NCMB. NO
Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation citing Atlas Farms, Inc. v. NLRC
is instructive:
Pursuant to Article 260 of the Labor Code, the parties to a CBA shall name or
designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and if the
grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to the voluntary
arbitrators designated in advance by parties to a CBA. Consequently, only disputes
involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
W/N the federation NFL had standing to file the complaint before the
NCMB. NO
Even granting that petitioner Union was affiliated with NFL, still the relationship
between that of the local union and the affiliated labor federation or national
union with is that of an agency, where the local is the principal and the
federation the agency. Being merely an agent of the local union, NFL
should have presented its authority to file the Notice of Mediation.
Cullos reliance on the denial by the Wage Board of respondents petition from
exemption from a Wage Order is misplaced since said petition was denied
because the financial statements then submitted by respondents were not
audited.
In this case, respondent submitted its audited financial statements which show
that for the years 1998, 1999, until September 30, 2000, its total operating
losses amounted to P48,409,385.00. Based on the foregoing, the CA was not
without basis when it declared that respondent was suffering from impending
financial distress.
W/N the MOA was an invalid dimunition of benefits prohibited under Art.
100. NO
Even assuming arguendo that Article 100 applies to the case at bar, this Court
agrees with respondent that the same does not prohibit a union from offering
and agreeing to reduce wages and benefits of the employees.
PAL. It was also PALEA that voluntarily opted for the 10-year
suspension of the CBA. Either case was the unions exercise of its right
to collective bargaining. The right to free collective bargaining,
after all, includes the right to suspend it
Lastly, this Court is not unmindful of the fact that DIHFEU-NFL's Constitution and
By-Laws specifically provides that "the results of the collective bargaining
negotiations shall be subject to ratification and approval by majority vote of the
Union members at a meeting convened, or by plebiscite held for such special
purpose."
o
Accordingly, there was no need for the MOA to be ratified by the
members of the Union (because not a CBA)
o
However, despite this non-ratification, EEs individually signed contracts
denominated as "Reconfirmation of Employment with the assistance
by their president, Rojas. Therefore EEs are aware of the MOA.
o
87 union members signed said Reconfirmation contract and 71 of them
are allegedly being represented by Cullo. Court notes that contract was
freely entered into by the EEs and MOA is deemed impliedly ratified by
them,
o
Having enjoyed the benefit under said contract and MOA (not losing
their jobs) it would now be iniquitous for them to renege on their
agreement.
Petition DENIED
DWU filed and MR and the Union filed a second notice of strike
(grounds: violation of return-to-work order and ULP)
Acting SoLE dela Serna dismissed the MR
o The Unions proposals were not validly withdrawn and only
3/8 members of the Executive Board of the Union signed
the withdrawal. Hence DWU is not exculpated from the
duty to bargain with the Union
o The surreptitious filing of the petition, and cunningly
entering into an agreement which required the union to
submit a renewed CBA proposal is patently negotiating in
bad faith. The university should have timely raised the
issue of representation if it believed that such issue was
valid.
o DWU should be in default and the SoLE may rightfully
impose the Unions CBA proposals
ISSUES/HELD:
WON the CBA proposals can be unilaterally imposed in this case? YES
RATIO:
Art. 258 of the LC and Rule V Book V Sec. 3 of the IRR states that:
in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, an employer
who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for
certification election any time except upon a clear showing
that one of these two instances exists: (a) the petition is filed
within 1 year from the date of issuance of a final certification
election result; or (b) when a bargaining deadlock had been
submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.
2 ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. The following procedures shall be observed in collective
bargaining:(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other
party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than 10 calendar
days from receipt of such notice. xxx
SC applied Kiok Loy v. NLRC3 since the facts therein have also been
established in this case: (a) the union is the duly certified
bargaining agent; (b) it made a definite request to bargain and
submitted its collective bargaining proposals, and (c) the university
made no counter proposal whatsoever
o "a company's refusal to make counter proposal if
considered in relation to the entire bargaining process, may
indicate bad faith and this is especially true where the
Union's request for a counter proposal is left unanswered."
o
3 SC upheld the order of the NLRC declaring the union's draft CBA proposal as the collective agreement
which should govern the relationship between the parties.
5.
6.
7.
8.
alleged
period. The "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3, Rule XI, Book V, of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was from 19891994. The petition for certification election by ACEC, allegedly a
legitimate labor organization, was filed with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26, 1996. Clearly, the
petition was filed outside the sixtyday freedom period. Hence, the
filing thereof was barred by the existence of a valid and existing
collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, there is no
legitimate representation issue and, as such, the filing of the
petition for certification election did not constitute a bar to the
ongoing negotiation.
Concerning the issue on the validity of the termination of the union
president, we hold that the dismissal was effected in violation of
the employees' right to self organization.
To justify the dismissal, petitioner asserts that the union president
was terminated for cause, allegedly for insubordination for her
failure to comply with the new working schedule assigned to her,
and pursuant to its managerial prerogative to discipline and/or
dismiss its employees. While we recognize the right of the
employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or
authorized cause, nevertheless, the dismissal of employees must
be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets
of equity and fair play.The employer's right to terminate the
services of an employee for just or authorized cause must be
exercised in good faith. More importantly, it must not amount to
interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise
of their right to selforganization because it would amount to, as in
this case, unlawful labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor
Code.
The factual backdrop of the termination of Ms. Ambas leads us to
no other conclusion that she was dismissed in order to strip the
union of a leader who would fight for the right of her coworkers at
the bargaining table. Ms. Ambas, at the time of her dismissal, had
been working for the petitioner for ten (10) years already. In fact,
she was a recipient of a loyalty award. Moreover, for the past ten
(10) years her working schedule was from Monday to Friday.
However, things began to change when she was elected as union
president and when she started negotiating for a new CBA. Thus, it
was when she was the union president and during the period of
tense and difficult negotiations when her work schedule was
altered from Mondays to Fridays to Tuesdays to Saturdays. When
she did not budge, although her schedule was changed, she was
outrightly dismissed for
insubordination.
Parties:
o Petitioner GMC (General Milling Corporation)
o Respondents:
Private Respondents:
ISSUES/HELD:
1) (Topical) WON the CA had jurisdiction to impose the terms of the
draft CBA for 2 years beginning from the expiration of the prior
one. YES
2) WON GMC is guilty of the ULP of refusing to collectively bargain
and/or interference with the right to self-organization YES (both)
RATIO:
1) Yes, a proposed draft CBA may be imposed where a party abuses
the grace period by purposely delaying the bargaining process
because it would be contrary to fairness, equity, and social justice
to allow the old CBAs terms and conditions to subsist despite the
employers delaying the negotiations.
A) General Rule Status quo: Old CBA subsists until new one
agreed upon.
1. Statutory Basis Labor Code Art. 259 (then Art. 253)
2. Limitation This presupposes that there is no bad faith (in
other words, all other things are equal.)
3. Exception Deviating from this rule is warranted where a
party abuses the grace period by purposely delaying the
bargaining process.
a) Illustrative cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Concept Found in Art. 258 and 259 (then 252 only): The
performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for negotiating an
agreement.
Procedure Found in Labor Code Art. 256 (then 250).
a. Nature Mandatory because of the state interest in
industrial peace.
In this case: GMC
i. Failed to make a timely reply.
ii. Had a flimsy excuse since its feeling that
the union no longer represented the
workers turned out to be baseless.
GMCs refusal to make a counter-proposal indicated bad
faith.
A) On the interference with the right to selforganization The CA correctly held that
the timing of the letters showed an
attempt to cast doubt on the unions
status.
1. The letters were dated February to
June of 1993, during the pendency
of the case with the LA.6
6 But I dont know what the Court made of the earlier letters (See Fact Bullet #3).
had been ratified by members of the bargaining unit some of whom later
organized themselves as SANAMA-SIGLO, the certification election
applicant. Since these SANAMA-SIGLO members fully accepted and in fact
received the benefits arising from the amendments, the Acting Secretary
rationalized that they also accepted the extended term of the CBA and
cannot now file a petition for certification election based on the original
CBA expiration date. SANAMA-SIGLO moved for the reconsideration which
the SOLE denied.
SANAMA-SIGLO appealed to the CA. CA found the petition meritorious,
ruling that while the parties may renegotiate the other provisions
(economic and non-economic) of the CBA, this should not affect the fiveyear representation aspect of the original CBA. If the duration of the
renegotiated agreement does not coincide with but rather exceeds the
original five-year term, the same will not adversely affect the right of
another union to challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent within sixty (60) days before the lapse of the original five (5) year
term of the CBA.
FVCLU-PTGWO appealed to the SC, contending that the extension of the
CBA term also changed the unions exclusive bargaining representation
status and effectively moved the reckoning point of the 60-day freedom
period from January 30, 2003 to May 30, 2003.
Subsequently, SANAMA-SIGLO manifested that they are abandoning their
desire to contest the representative status of FVCLU-PTGWO since the July
2006 CA Decision.
ISSUES/HELD:
WON the petition for certification election filed by SANAMA-SIGLO was filed
beyond the 60-day period to contest the representative status of FVCLUPTGWO?
RATIO:
While SANAMA-SIGLO has manifested its abandonment of its challenge to
the exclusive bargaining representation status of FVCLU-PTGWO, we deem
it necessary to resolve the issue as it will inevitably recur in the future.
Article 253-A of the Labor Code provides:
xxxx
(b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom period of a duly
registered collective bargaining agreement; provided that the sixty-day
period based on the original collective bargaining agreement shall not be
affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of the collective
bargaining agreement.
While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term
together with all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in
excess of five years will not carry with it a change in the unions exclusive
collective bargaining status. By express provision of the above-quoted
Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years
and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace
parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an agreement for a CBA with
a life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by
amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is effective
only for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiration of the CBAs first five years.
In San Miguel Corp. Employees Union PTGWO, et al. v. Confesor, San Miguel
Corp., Magnolia Corp. and San Miguel Foods, Inc.:
In the event however, that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter into a
renegotiated contract with a term of three (3) years or one which does not
coincide with the said five-year term and said agreement is ratified by
majority of the members in the bargaining unit, the subject contract is
valid and legal and therefore, binds the contracting parties. The same will
however not adversely affect the right of another union to challenge the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent within sixty (60) days
before the lapse of the original five (5) year term of the CBA.
The negotiated extension of the CBA term has no legal effect on the
FVCLU-PTGWOs exclusive bargaining representation status which remained
effective only for five years ending on the original expiry date of January
30, 2003. Thus, SANAMA-SIGLO could properly file a petition for
certification election and its petition was seasonably filed.
SC however did not order the conduct of a petition for certification election
because of the manifestation of SANAMA-SIGLO abandon its challenge to
the exclusive majority statues of PTGWO.
October, 1953: the respondent and the manager of the Manila Branch
(Kamerling) developed strained relationship that led the former
to lodge with the managing director in Hongkong a complaint against
Kamerling.
She charged the petitioner and Kamerling with unfair labor practice
under section 4 (a), subsection 5 Republic Act No. 875
Ermidia Mariano v. The Royal Interocean Lines (Koninkijke Java-ChinaPakitvaart Lijnen N. V. Amsterdam) and J. V. Kamerling
27 February 1961; Padilla, J.
Digest prepared by Jethro Koon
I. Facts (from a stipulation of facts)
1. Mariano was employed by Royal Interocean Lines as stenographertypist and filing clerk from 5 January 1932 until the outbreak of the
war on 8 December 1941, when the employment was interrupted,
and from 1 March 1948 until 23 October 1953, when she was
dismissed.
At the time of her dismissal, she was receiving a basic
salary of P312 and a high cost of living allowance of P206,
or a total of P518 a month.
2. On 5 October 1953 she had sent a letter to the managing directors
in HK, coursed through its manager for the Phil., Kamerling,
complaining against the latter's "inconsiderate and untactful
attitude" towards the employees under him and the clients in the
Phil.
On 19 October 1953 Kamerling advised Mariano that her
letter had been forwarded to the managing directors of the
appellant company in HK;
In view of the contents and tenor of her letter, the
managing directors believed with him that it was
impossible to retain her;
Despite the fact that they were justified in dismissing her
and that she was not entitled to any compensation, out of
generosity and in consideration of her length of service,
the company was willing to grant her a sum equivalent to
three months salary;
In order not to adversely affect her chances of future
employment with other firms, it was suggested that she
hand in a formal letter of resignation effective 31 October,
otherwise she would be dismissed; and that should they
not hear from her in writing until noon of 23 October, she
would be considered dismissed.
3. On 23 October 1953 Mariano sent a letter stating that she was
"compelled to hand this letter of resignation severing my services
from the Royal Interocean Lines effective October 31st, 1963, much
to my dislike and disappointment after being in their employment
for almost twenty-two (22) years". However, the company refused
to accept her letter and on the same date sent a letter dismissing
her. She sought reconsideration of her dismissal from HK but
received no answer to any of her five letters.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
II. Issues
Whether the company was guilty of unfair labor practice in having
dismissed the Mariano because she had filed charges against Kamerling
not connected with or necessarily arising from union activities.
III. Holding
The judgment is reversed, but the company is ordered to pay P3,108,
without interest. No pronouncements as to costs.
IV. Ratio
1. 4(a), subsection 5, of RA 875 reads as follows: "It shall be unfair
labor practice for an employer to dismiss, discharge, or otherwise
prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed
charges or for having given or being about to give testimony under
this Act."
2. Considering the policy behind the enactment of the statute, it is
readily discoverable that the provisions of 1 and 3 are the bases
for the protection of the laborers right to self-organization, and the
enumeration in 4 (of unfair labor practices), are nothing more than
a detailed description of an employer's acts that may interfere with
the right of self-organization and collective bargaining.
3. Despite the right to self-organization, the employer still retains his
inherent right to discipline his employees, his normal prerogative to
hire or dismiss them. The prohibition is directed only against the
use of the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of
discrimination, interference or oppression because of one's labor or
union activities.
4. The employee's (1) having filed charges or (2) having given
5.
RULING:
Although generally, a State may not compel ordinary voluntary
associations to admit thereto any given individual, because membership
therein may be accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege, the rule is
qualified in respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of
labor, either in a given locality, or as regards a particular employer with
which it has a closed-shop agreement.
The closed-shop agreement and the union shop cause the admission
requirements of the trade union to become affected with public interest.
Likewise, a closed-shop, or union shop, or maintenance of membership
clauses, cause the administration of discipline by unions to be affected
with public interest.
Therefore, such unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified
applicants for membership and a closed-shop provision would not justify
the employer in discharging, or a union in insisting upon the discharge of
and employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership,
without any reasonable ground. Needless to say, if said unions may be
compelled to admit new members, who have the requisite qualifications,
with more reason may the law and the courts exercise the coercive power
when the employee involved is a long standing union member, who, owing
to provocations of union officers, was impelled to tender his resignation,
which he forthwith withdrew or revoked. Surely, he may, at least, invoke
the rights of those who seek admission for the first time, and cannot
arbitrarily be denied readmission.
As to the Company, the court found that the former is not guilty of ULP
because it deferred the discharge of petitioner and informed him of the
consequences of his actions. The Company gave due regard to the
petitioners plight and was not unfair to the petitioner. It did not merely
show commendable understanding and sympathy towards the petitioner
but even tried to help him. The Company cannot be blamed for the
petitioners dismissal as it had the right to rely on the decision of the Union
of not accepting the readmission of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the appealed resolution of the CIR en banc is REVERSED.
Moreover, starting September 1991, petitioners did not any more give
work assignments to the complainants forcing the union to stage a
strike. But due to the conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another MOA
was signed by the complainants and petitioners which provides.
The finding of unfair labor practice done in bad faith carries with it
the sanction of moral and exemplary damages.
ISSUES/HELD:
W/N PDC was guilty of Unfair Labor Practices (through their union busting
activites)? YES.
RATIO:
It appears that the individual complainants, during show days, were always
scheduled to work until June 1962 when they were not included in the
schedule anymore. This virtually amounted to dismissal, without prior
notice. Their not being included in the list of schedule since June 1962
could only be the result of petitioners' earlier threat of dismissal should
said complainants refuse to heed petitioners' admonition for them to resign
from the ACEA.
From the facts of record, it is clear that the individual complainants were
dismissed because they refused to resign from the Araneta Coliseum
Employees Association and to affiliate with the Progressive Employees
Union which was being aided and abetted by the Progressive Development
Corporation.
The assertion of the petitioner Progressive Development Corporation and
its officials that they have nothing to do with the formation of the
Progressive Employees Union is not supported by the facts of record.
The President then of the Progressive Employees Union was Jose Generoso,
Jr., Stage Manager of the Progressive Development Corporation. The stage
Manager, Generoso, has supervisory power over the twenty-two (22)
employees under him. Generoso was then the No. 2 man in the Araneta
Coliseum, being an assistant of the Director of said Coliseum. While the
Progressive Employees Union was allegedly organized on June 26, 1962, it
was only on July 11, 1962 that its existence was publicly announced when
the management of the petitioner corporation refused to meet with the
Araneta Coliseum Employees Association. The Progressive Employees
Union never collected dues from its members and all their members are
now regular employees and are still working in the construction unit of the
Philippine Development Corporation. There is evidence that the Progressive
Employees Union became inactive after the death of Atty. Reonista the
former counsel of the Progressive Development Corporation. This shows
that the Progressive Employees Union was organized to camouflage the
petitioner corporation's dislike for the Araneta Coliseum Employees
Association and to stave off the latter's recognition.
2.
Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known as
"Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent 4,500
employees of San Miguel Corporation, presented to the company a
"demand" for correction of the "significant distortion in . . . (the
workers') wages."
o In that "demand," the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 (d)
of RA 6727 which reads as follows: (d) . . . Where the
application of the increases in the wage rates under this
Section results in distortions as defined under existing laws
in the wage structure within an establishment and gives
rise to a dispute therein, such dispute shall first be settled
voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a
deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through
compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) having
jurisdiction over the workplace. It shall be mandatory for
the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide any
dispute arising under this Section within twenty (20)
calendar days from the time said dispute is formally
submitted to it for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute
arising from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay
the applicability of the increase in the wage rates
prescribed under this Section.
Union claims that "demand was ignored
When SMC rejected the reduced proposal of the UNION, the
members , on their own accord, refused to render overtime
services
The workers involved also issued a joint notice: SAMA-SAMANG
PAHAYAG: KAMING ARAWANG MANGGAGAWA NG POLO BREWERY
PAWANG KASAPI NG ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) AY
NAGKAISANG NAGPASYA NA IPATUPAD MUNA ANG EIGHT HOURS
WORK SHIFT PANSAMANTALA HABANG HINDI IPINATUTUPAD NG
SMC MANAGEMENT ANG TAMANG WAGE DISTORTION.
The Union's position was that the workers' refuse "to work beyond
eight (8) hours everyday starting October 16, 1989" as a legitimate
means of compelling SMC to correct "the distortion in their wages
brought about by the implementation of the said laws (R.A. 6640
and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees.
o That decision to observe the "eight hours work shift" was
implemented on October 16, 1989 by "some 800 daily-paid
workers ,all members of IBM .
ISSUE/RULING
Whether the workers' abandonment of the regular work schedule
and their deliberate and wilful reductoon of the plant's production
efficiency is a slowdown, which is an illegal and unprotected
concerted activity. YES
Case remanded.
San Miguel Corp v. NLRC and San Miguel Corp Employees UnionPTGWO (1999)
Mr. Daniel S. L. Borbon II, a rep of the union, declared that there
was nothing more to discuss in view of the deadlock.
PURISIMA, J.
The union filed several grievance cases for the said retrenched
employees, praying for the redeployment of the said employees to
the other divisions of the company.
8 Sec.5. Processing of Grievance. - Should a grievance arise, an earnest effort shall be made to settle the
grievance expeditiously in accordance with the following procedures:Step 1. - The individual employee
concerned and the Union Directors, or the Union Steward shall, first take up the employees grievance orally
with his immediate superior. If no satisfactory agreement or adjustment of the grievance is reached, the
grievance shall, within twenty (20) working days from the occurrence of the cause or event which gave rise to
the grievance, be filed in writing with the Department Manager or the next level superior who shall render his
decision within ten (10) working days from the receipt of the written grievance. A copy of the decision shall be
furnished the Plant Personnel Officer.
Step 2. - If the decision in Step 1 is rejected, the employee concerned may elevate or appeal this in writing to
the Plant Manager/Director or his duly authorized representative within twenty (20) working days from the
receipt of the Decision of the Department Manager. Otherwise, the decision in Step 1 shall be deemed
accepted by the employee.
SEC. 6. Conciliation Board. - There shall be a conciliation Board per Business Unit or Division. Every
Conciliation Board shall be composed of not more than five (5) representatives each from the Company and
the Union. Management and the Union may be assisted by their respective legal counsels.
The Plant Manager/Director assisted by the Plant Personnel Officer shall determine the necessity of
conducting grievance meetings. If necessary, the Plant Manager/Director and the Plant Personnel Officer shall
meet the employee concerned and the Union Director/Steward on such date(s) as may be designated by the
Plant Manager. In every plant/office, Grievance Meetings shall be scheduled at least twice a month.
In every Division/Business Unit, the names of the Company and Union representatives to the Conciliation
Board shall be submitted to the Division/Business Unit Manager not later than January of every year. The
Conciliation Board members shall act as such for one (1) year until removed by the Company or the Union, as
the case may be.
The Plant Manager shall give his written comments and decision within ten (10) working days after his receipt
of such grievance or the date of submission of the grievance for resolution, as the case may be.A copy of his
Decision shall be furnished the Employee Relations Directorate.
Sec. 8. Submission to Arbitration. - If the employee or Union is not satisfied with the Decision of the
Conciliation Board and desires to submit the grievance to arbitration, the employee or the Union shall serve
notice of such intention to the Company within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the Boards decision. If
no such written notice is received by the Company within fifteen (15) working days, the grievance shall be
considered settled on the basis of the companys position and shall no longer be available for arbitration.
Step 3. - If no satisfactory adjustment is arrived at Step 2, the employee may appeal the Decision to the
Conciliation Board as provided under Section 6 hereof, within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt
of the decision of the Plant Manager/Director or his designate. Otherwise, the decision in Step 2 shall be
SMC asked to dismiss the notice of strike given by union and for it
to comply with the provisions of the SBA on grievance machinery,
arbitration, and the no-strike clause.
See Rule XXII, Section I, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V
the Labor Code.9 In the case under consideration, the grounds relied
upon by the private respondent union are non-strikeable. The
grounds appear more illusory than real.
9 Section 1. Grounds for strike and lockout. -- A strike or lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining
deadlocks and unfair labor practices. Violations of the collective bargaining agreements, except flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions, shall not be considered unfair labor practice and
shall not be strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
disputes or on issues brought to voluntary or compulsory arbitration.
Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co: the strike staged by the
union is illegal for not complying with the grievance procedure
provided in the collective bargaining agreement. The main
purpose of the parties in adopting a procedure in the
settlement of their disputes is to prevent a strike. This
procedure must be followed in its entirety if it is to
achieve its objective. x x x strikes held in violation of
the terms contained in the collective bargaining
agreement are illegal, especially when they provide for
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be
strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be
achieved.
The union does not question the validity of the business move
of petitioner.
10
11
April 11, 1994 IBM, through its VP Colomeda, filed with the NCMB
a notice of strike against petitioner for allegedly committing: (1)
illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal transfer, (3) violation
of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed by union
members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union
officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union
officers, and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice.
Next day, IBM filed another notice of strike, this time though its
President Galvez raising similar ground.
Galvez group requested the NCMB to consolidate its notice of strike
with that of the Colomeda group, to which the latter opposed,
alleging that Galvez lacks authority in filing the same.
NCMB Director Ubaldo found that the real issues involved are nonstrikeable grounds. He issued an order converting their notices of
strike into preventive mediation.
May 16, 1994 Colomeda group filed with the NCMB a notice of
holding a strike vote. This was opposed by petitioner. Colomeda
group notified the NCMB of the results of their strike vote, which
favored the holding of a strike. The strike paralyzed the operations
of petitioner, causing it losses allegedly worth P29.98 M in daily
lost production.
May 23, 1994 Galvez group filed its second notice of strike. NCMB
however found the grounds to be mere amplifications of those
alleged in the first notice.
ISSUE:
(1) WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to enforce,
by injunction, the parties reciprocal obligations to submit to
arbitration and not to strike. YES.
(2) WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion in withholding injunction
which is the only immediate and effective substitute for the
disastrous economic warfare that arbitration is designed to avoid.
YES.
HOLDING/RATIO:
Under the first exception, Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code
expressly confers upon the NLRC the power to enjoin or
restrain actual and threatened commission of any or all
prohibited or unlawful acts, or to require the performance
of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
decision in favor of such party.
after the unions manifestation with the NLRC that there existed no
threat of commission of prohibited activities.
Moreover ruled that there was a lack of factual basis in issuing the
injunction. Contrary to the NLRCs finding, the Court finds that at
the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to
revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being
circulated by the IBM-NCR Council which led the union. These flyers
categorically declared: Ipaalala nyo sa management na hindi
iniaatras ang ating Notice of Strike (NOS) at anumang oras ay
pwede nating muling itirik ang picket line. These flyers were not
denied by respondent, and were dated June 19, 1994, just a day
12
Baptista v Villanueva
July 31, 2013 | Mendoza, J.
By: AP
SUMMARY:
Petitioners were expelled from their union because they violated a
provision in their Constitution and By-laws which prohibit filing of case in
court before all internal remedies are exhausted. They were expelled from
the union, then terminated by RPN pursuant to the CBA union security
clause. They then filed a ULP case against respondent. LA in their favour.
NLRC, CA and SC ruled for respondents.
DOCTRINE: (4-fold Test)
Workers and employers organizations shall have the right to draw up their
constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, to
organize their administration and activities and to formulate their
programs; RPNEUs Constitution and By-Laws expressly mandate that
before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the internal remedies within the
organization.
FACTS:
Petitioners were former union members of Radio Phil Network Employees
Union (RPNEU) which was the SEBA of RPN while respondents are elected
officers and members of the same.
Petitioners filed a complaint for impeachment of their union president
before the executive board of RPN. This was eventually abandoned. They
later re-lodged the impeachment complaint, this time, against all union
officers and members of RPNEU before the DOLE. They also filed various
petitions for an audit.
3 complaints were later filed against them before the unions Committee
on Grievance and Investigation (Committee) for alleged violation of the
unions Constitution and By-Law. It was alleged, inter alia, that they
violated Article IX, Section 2.5 for urging or advocating that a member start
an action in any court of justice or external investigative body against the
Union or its officer without first exhausting all internal remedies open to
him or available in accordance with the CBL.
After investigation, the committee recommended their expulsion to the
unions Board of Directors. They were then expelled.
The union then informed RPN of the expulsion and requested the
management to serve them notices of termination in compliance with their
CBAs union security clause. They were then terminated.
Petitioner filed 3 complaints for ULP against respondents questioning their
expulsion from the union and their subsequent termination from
employment.
LA: ruled in their favour and adjudged respondents guilty of ULP pursuant
to Article 249(a) and (b) of the Labor Code. It clarified, however, that only
union officers of the union should be held responsible so it exonerated 6 of
original defendants who were mere union members.
NLRC: reversed LA. It dismissed the ULP charge for lack of merit. NLRC
found that petitioners filed a suit calling for the impeachment of the
officers and members of the Executive Board of RPNEU without first
resorting to internal remedies available under its own Constitution and ByLaws.
CA: affirmed.
ISSUES/HELD:
WON respondents are guilty of ULP. NO
RATIO:
ULP concept imbedded in article 247 of LC.
commission of acts that transgress the workers right to organize;
As specified in Articles 248 and 249 of the Labor Code, the
prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers' right to selforganization and to the observance of a CBA; Absent the said vital
elements, the acts complained, although seemingly unjust, would not
constitute ULP.
Petitioners: Procedure that should have been followed by the
respondents in resolving the charges against them was Article XVII,
Settlement of Internal Disputes of their Constitution and By-Laws,
specifically, Section 232
Said rule requires members to put their grievance in writing to be
submitted to their union president, who shall strive to have the parties
settle their differences amicably. Petitioners maintain that any form of
grievance would be referred only to the committee upon failure of the
parties to settle amicably
SC: Disagreed
Based on RPNEUs Constitution and By-Laws, the charges against
petitioners were not mere internal squabbles, but violations that demand
proper investigation because, if proven, would constitute grounds for their
expulsion from the union;
As such, Article X on Investigation Procedures and Appeal Process
where any charge against any member or officer shall be submitted to the
Board of Directors which shall refer it (if necessary) to the committee which
shall forward its finding and recommendation to the board, was properly
applied.
Any procedural flaw in the proceedings before the Committee deemed
cured when petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard;
In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the
Respondents contended that the affected employees were not given regular
work assignments, while subcontractors were continuously hired to perform
their functions. Respondents sought the assistance of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board. Subsequently, an agreement between
petitioners and THS-GQ Union was reached. Petitioners agreed to give
priority to regular employees in the distribution of work assignments.
Respondents averred, however, that petitioners never complied with its
commitment but instead hired contractual workers. Instead, Respondents
claimed that the work weeks of those employees in the SBFZ plant were
drastically reduced to only three (3) days in a month.
2nd CAUSE: On March 24, 2004, THS-GQ Union filed a petition for
certification election and an order was issued to hold the certification
election in both T&H Shopfitters and Gin Queen.
On October 10, 2004, petitioners sponsored a field trip to Iba, Zambales, for
its employees. The officers and members of the THS-GQ Union were
purportedly excluded from the field trip. On the evening of the field trip, a
certain Angel Madriaga, a sales officer of petitioners, campaigned against
the union in the forthcoming certification election.
When the certification election was scheduled on October 11, 2004, the
employees were escorted from the field trip to the polling center in
Zambales to cast their votes. The remaining employees situated at the
SBFZ plant cast their votes as well. Due to the heavy pressure exerted by
petitioners, the votes for no union prevailed.
lease contract between Gin Queen and its lessor in Castillejos, Zambales
and announced the relocation of its office and workers to Cabangan,
Zambales.
When the respondents, visited the site in Cabangan, discovered that it was
a talahiban or grassland. The said union officers and members were made
to work as grass cutters in Cabangan, under the supervision of a certain
Barangay Captain Greg Pangan. Due to these circumstances, the
employees assigned in Cabangan did not report for work. The other
employees who likewise failed to report in Cabangan were meted out with
suspension.
In its defense, Petitioners also stress that they cannot be held liable for ULP
for the reason that there is no employer-employee relationship between the
former and respondents. Further, Gin Queen avers that its decision to
implement an enforced rotation of work assignments for respondents was a
management prerogative permitted by law, justified due to the decrease in
orders from its customers, they had to resort to cost cutting measures to
avoid anticipated financial losses. Thus, it assigned work on a rotational
basis. It explains that its failure to present concrete proof of its decreasing
orders was due to the impossibility of proving a negative assertion. It also
asserts that the transfer from Castillejos to Cabangan was made in good
faith and solely because of the expiration of its lease contract in Castillejos.
It was of the impression that the employees, who opposed its economic
measures, were merely motivated by spite in filing the complaint for ULP
against it.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether or not ULP acts were committed by petitioners against
respondents.
ULP were committed by petitioners against respondents.Petitioners are being
accused of violations of paragraphs (a), (c), and (e) of Article 257 (formerly Article
248) of the Labor Code,13 to wit:
Article 257. Unfair labor practices of employers.It shall be unlawful for an
employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization;
xxxx
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 right to
self-organization;
xxxx
(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. x x x