Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NLRC
Cuevas, J.:
Facts:
The Union furnished the Company with two copies of its proposed
collective bargaining agreement. At the same time, it requested the
Company for its counter proposals. Eliciting no response to the aforesaid
request, the Union again wrote the Company reiterating its request for
collective bargaining negotiations and for the Company to furnish them with
its counter proposals. Both requests were ignored and remained unacted
upon by the Company.
For failure of the Company Counsel to present Mr. Ching and for filing
several postponement the labor arbiter Andres Fidelino ruled that the
Company is guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain.
Issue:
Is the petition Sweden Ice Cream guilty of unfair labor practice of refusal to
bargain?
Law Involved:
Case History:
The labor Arbiter ruled that the Company's guilty of unfair labor
practice of refusal to bargain.
NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter that the Company's
guilty of unjustified refusal to bargain.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
Opinion:
The decision of the Court which state that the Company's guilty of
unfair labor practice of refusal to bargain is proper. The Company's action for
filing several postponement and failure to present Mr. Ching are proof of the
Company's refusal to bargain with the Union.
General Milling Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals
Quisimbing, J.:
Facts:
In its two plants located at Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City, petitioner
General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 workers. They were all
members of private respondent General Milling Corporation Independent
Labor Union (union, for brevity), a duly certified bargaining agent.
On November 29, 1991, a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union
sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a request that a counter-proposal be
submitted within ten (10) days.
GMC wrote a letter to the unions officers, Rito Mangubat and Victor
Lastimoso. The letter stated that it felt there was no basis to negotiate with a
union which no longer existed, but that management was nonetheless
always willing to dialogue with them on matters of common concern and was
open to suggestions on how the company may improve its operations.
In answer, the union officers wrote a letter dated December 19, 1991
disclaiming any massive disaffiliation or resignation from the union and
submitted a manifesto, signed by its members, stating that they had not
withdrawn from the union.
Thus, the union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the
NLRC, Arbitration Division, Cebu City. The complaint alleged unfair labor
practice on the part of GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2)
interference with the right to self-organization; and (3) discrimination.
Issue:
Is the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding GMC guilty of unfair labor practice
for violating the duty to bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right
of its employees to self-organization.
Law Involved:
Case History:
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Corporation that a petition for
certification election to determine the support in the corporation.
NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the labor arbiter.
Ruling:
Opinion:
Sanchez, J.:
Facts:
Associated Labor Union1 and Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu,
Inc., entered into a collective bargaining contract. It was to expire on January
1, 1966. Prior to the contract's expiry, Union and employer started
negotiations for its renewal. Late in February, 1966, while bargaining was in
progress, 12 of Sugeco's employees resigned from the Union. Negotiations
were broken. On March 1, 1966, the Union wrote Sugeco. There, request was
made that unless the 12 resigned employees3 could produce a clearance
from the Union, they be not allowed in the meantime to report for work. On
the same day, Sugeco's attorney rejected the request. The reasons given are
that irreparable injury would ensue, that the bargaining contract had lapsed,
and that the Company could no longer demand from its employees the
requested clearance. Sugeco made it understood that after the 12 men
would have returned into the Union fold, said company would then be "in a
position to negotiate again for the renewal of the collective bargaining
contract."
Also on the same day, March 1, the Union wrote Sugeco, charged the
latter with bargaining in bad faith, and its supervisors with "campaigning for
the resignation of members of this Union". The Union there served notice
"that unless the aforementioned unfair labor practice acts will immediately
be stopped and a collective bargaining agreement be signed between your
company and this union immediately after receipt of this letter, this union
will declare a strike against your management and correspondingly establish
picket lines in any place where your business may be found". On March 3,
1966, counsel for Sugeco wrote the Union stating that with the resignation of
Union members aforesaid, the Union was no longer the representative of the
majority of the employees "for purposes of negotiation and recognition".
Sugeco went to the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Case No. R-9221,
entitled "Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc., petitioner, vs.
Associated Labor Union, respondent"), praying that the Union be restrained
from alleged illegal picketing activities at its Basak plant, and also from,
picketing Sugeco's offices at Juan Luna street, Cebu City, and its other offices
located elsewhere in the Philippines.
On the same day the Court of First Instance complaint was filed by
Sugeco against the Union the latter lodged with the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR, for short) a charge for unfair labor practice against Sugeco, its
general manager, Concepelon Y. Lua, and its two supervisors, Nestor Yu and
Mariano Nulla. The Union there averred that said respondents coerced and
exerted pressure upon the union members to resign, as they did resign, from
the Union; and that such resignations were seized upon by Sugeco to refuse
further negotiations with the Union.
Issue:
Is the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of unfair labor practice?
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
The broad sweep of the law suggests that the coercion or cajolery of
employees heretofore described, by management or union, is unfair labor
practice.8 Therefore, the alleged act of coercing or instigating union
members to resign therefrom is clearly within the coverage of the
prescription. It is aimed at crippling the Union, throwing it off balance,
destroying its bargaining authority. It is an attack against the Magna Carta of
Labor. By the same token, the charge levelled by Sugeco against the Union
that the latter "is coercing the resigned employees to rejoin the Union" is no
less an unfair labor practice.
G.R. No.178647
February 13, 2009
Nachura,J.:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Unfair Labor Practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to
organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right to self-
organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that element, the
acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practice.
Both the NLRC and the CA found that petitioner was unable to prove its
charge of unfair labor practices. It was the Union that had the burden of
adducing substantial evidence to support its allegations of unfair labor
practice, which burden it failed to discharge.
Opinion:
Facts :
Issue:
Is NLRC gravely abuse its discretion when it held that petitioner were
not guilty of ULP and stating that respondent is devoid of leadership in the
Appropriate Bargaining Unit?
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
The BLR Director Cacdac has already rendered decision that the
respondents leadership is not void. The petitioner should have collectively
bargain to the respondent rather than insisting that the union is void of
leadership. The decision of the court is proper.
UST Faculty Union v. University of Sto. Tomas
Facts :
Marino group filed a compliant for ULP against UST with the Arbitration
Branch. It also filed a complaint before Med-Arbiter praying for the
nullification of the election of the Gamilla Group.
A CBA was entered between Gamilla Group and UST superseding the
existing CBA of UST and USTFU. The Med-Arbiter declared the election of
Gamilla Group as null and void. On appeal, the BLR affirmed the decision of
Med-Arbiter. On appeal before this Court, the Court upheld the ruling of BLR.
With the decision of this Court, the case before the Arbitration Branch of
NLRC was dismissed for lack of merit. USTFU appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC
affirmed the decision of LA. When the case is elevated to CA, the Court
affirmed the decision of NLRC. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Article 247 and Article 248 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
Case History:
Ruling:
The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has the
burden of proving it. While, there are exceptions to this general rule, in the
case of ULP, the alleging party has the burden of proving such ULP.
In order to show that the employer committed ULP under the Labor
Code, substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial
evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Opinion:
CONCEPCION, C.J.
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling: Yes.
Opinion:
The court is correct that the employer is quilty of unfair labor practice
from non membership or withdrawal from the union. It is the right of the
employee to join union or association as stated in the Philippines.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
Facts:
The complaint alleged that the PDC, through its officers, initiated a move to
disauthorize the counsel of the complainant ACEA from appearing in a union
conference with the company; that the supervisors of PDC encouraged, and
assisted in, the formation of the Progressive Employees Union (PEU) and
coerced the employees, particularly the individual complainants, to
disaffiliate from the complainant union and to affiliate with the PEU; that
in July and August 1962 the respondents,petitioners herein, discriminated
against the individual complainants by either not giving them their working
schedules, lessening their number of working days and eventually dismissing
themfrom their employment, because of their refusal to disaffiliate from their
union and join the Progressive Employees Union.The CIR ruled that the
company is guilty of unfair labor practice hence ordered thecompany to
ceases and desist from such unfair labor practice and to reinstate the
complainants with backwages.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
The Court affirmed the ruling of the CIR
Held: Yes.
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. There is reason to believe that had the individual complainants
agreed to resign from the ACEA and to transfer to the PEU, they would not
have been separated from their work and would even have been made
permanent employees. 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.The
petitioners were correctly found to have committed acts constituting unfair
labor practice.
Opinion:
GRINO-AQUINO, J.:
Facts:
Dionisio Estioca, supervisor of the company and president of the union, NFL
posted an announcement on the bulletin board of the
employees' coffee shop criticizing the Company for having earmarked the
sum of P250,000 for the inter-department athletic tournament (which
hecalled "a farce and baloony") to be held that year, instead of using the
money to pay the employees' claims for living allowance. He urged the
employees to boycott the sports event.Subsequently he was
terminated by the company for loss of trust and confidence
in him.Thereafter, the union after filing a notice of strike with the Regional
Director of the MOLE in Zamboanga City stuck. Meanwhile the company
asked the MOLE for arbitration. Estioca filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
with the NLRC. The Minister of Labor certified the labor dispute to the NLRC
for compulsory arbitration.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Held: Yes.
Opinion:
Paras, J.:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Republic Act No. 875 Section 4 (a)
Case History:
The petitioner and Kamerling is guilty of unfair labor practice and order
respondent reinstatement.
Ruling:
No. Ratio Despite the employees' 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.
In this case, Mariano's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the
charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not
arise from her union activities. .
Opinion:
GANCAYCO, J.:
Facts:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Both the employand the union members are bound by such agreement.
Opinion:
PADILLA, J.:
Facts:
The petitioners, all officers of the Roche Products Labor Union, wrote the
respondent company expressing their grievances and seeking formal
conference with management regarding the previous dismissal of the unions
president and vice-president. At the meeting, instead of discussing the
problems affecting the labor union and management, the companys
general manager allegedly berated the petitioners for writing the said
letter and called the letter and the person who prepared it stupid.
Feeling that he was the one alluded to, since he had prepared the letter, the
counsel for the labor union filed a case for Grave Slander against the
general manager. The charge was based on the affidavit executed by the
petitioners.In turn, the company and the manager filed a complaint for
Perjury against petitioners alleging that their affidavit contained false
statements.The company construed the execution by petitioners of the
affidavit as an act of breach of trust and confidence. Hence, they were
suspended and later on dismissed.
Law Involved:
Case History:
NLRC ordered reinstatement of the petitioner while the Secretary of labor set
aside the NLRC decision and ordered payment of severance pay.
Office of the President ruled that respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice.
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Petitioner denied having locked out the complainants and claims that
the said complainants failed to report for work and abandoned their
positions. The petitioner also denied having knowledge of the union activities
of the complainants until August 30, 1978, when it was served notice of a
petition for direct certification filed by the complainant union.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Under Art. 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in their exercise of their right to self
organization is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer.
Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an
employers to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere the formation
or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial
or other support to it. In this particular case, the private respondents were
dismissed, or their services were terminated, because they were soliciting
signatures in order to form a union within the plant.
Opinion:
I agreed with the court decision that petitioner is guilty of unfair labor
practice in interfering administration of any labor organization. The petitioner
does not want the private respondent to form union in the company. Such act
is clearly a violation of the right to form union which is an unfair labor
practice.
CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, CORNELIO L. PANGILINAN,
LEO TROPACIO, OLIMPIO GUMIN, JUANITO SUBA, ROLANDO SANTOS,
RUBEN BUELA, ODILON LISING, REYNALDO DAYRIT, ROGELIO
MANGUERRA, ORLANDO NACU, DIOSILINO PERDON, ERNESTO
GALANG, ORLANDO PANGILINAN, JESUS SEMBRANO, RENATO
CASTANEDA, EDILBERTO BINGCANG, ERNESTO CAPIO, RUFO A.
BUGAYONG, RICARDO S. DOMINGO, TERESITO CULLARIN, ISRAEL
VINO, ERNESTO RAMIREZ, ROMEO S. GINA, ARNEL CALILUNG, PEDRO
A. SANTOS, RODOLFO CAPITLY, BUENAVENTURA B. PUNO, EDILBERTO
QUIAMBAO, FERNANDO LISING, ERNESTO M. TUAZON, MARCELO
LANGUNSAD, MARCELINO VALERIO, SERAFIN PAWA, JESUS S.
DAQUIGAN, and ISMAEL CAYANAN, v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), and e.g. GOCHANGCO, INC.,
SARMIENTO, J.:
Facts:
Issue:
Case History:
NLRC set aside and reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Ruling:
Opinion:
CASTRO, J.:
Facts:
From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties negotiated on the labor demands
but with no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary
increases. On May 13, 1958 the Unions demanded from the Companies final
counter-proposals on their economic demands, particularly on salary
increases. Instead of giving counter-proposals, the Companies on May 15,
1958 presented facts and figures and requested the Unions to submit a
workable formula which would justify their own proposals, taking into
account the financial position of the former. Forthwith the Unions voted to
declare a strike in protest against what they considered the Companies'
unfair labor practices.
The respondents contend that the sending of the letters, exhibits A and B,
constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
We do not agree. The said letters were directed to the striking employees
individually by registered special delivery mail at that without being
coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the
collective bargaining.
Opinion:
KAPUNAN, J.:
Facts:
Law Involved:
Case History:
NLRC set aside and vacated the decision of the Labor Arbiter
Ruling: NO
We, likewise, disagree with the Union that there was in this case an illegal
lockout/illegal dismissal. Lockout is the temporary refusal of employer to
furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. It may be
manifested by the employer's act of excluding employees who are union
members.
Opinion:
The court is correct that run away shop is unfair labor practice.
However, the act of the petitioner in this case did not constitute unfair labor
practice. There was a valid exercise of runaway because it was not for the
purpose of transfering business.
GUTIERREZ, JR.:
Facts:
Tanduay Distillery, Inc. (TDI) and Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU)
entered into a CBA which contained a union security clause, which
provided:All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract,
become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-
Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment, maintain
membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the
agreement.
While the CBA was still in effect, a number of the TDLU, joined another
union, the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized
its local chapter in TDI.
The TDLU required those who disaffiliated to explain why they should
not be punished for disloyalty. TDLU created a committee to investigate
its erring members. The committee recommended that the disaffiliating
members be expelled and that they should be terminated from service in
pursuant to the union security clause. Acting on said request, the
company terminated the employment of the disaffiliating union members.
Law Involved:
Case History:
Labor Arbiter denied the termination of the employees in the TDI and
ordered reinstatement.
Ruling: NO
The private respondents cannot escape the effects of the security clause of
their own applicable CBA. Union Security Clauses in CBA, if freely and
voluntarily entered into, are valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal of an
employee by the company pursuant to a labor unions demand in
accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute ULP.
The respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their agreement
when it separated the herein complainants upon the recommendation
of said union. Such a stipulation is not only necessary to maintain loyalty
and preserve the integrity of the union but is allowed by the Magna Charta of
Labor when it provided that while it is recognized that an employee shall
have the right to selforganization, it is at the same time postulated that such
right shall not injure the right of the labor organization to prescribe its own
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.
Opinion:
CONCEPCION, J.:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
CIR dismiss the charge of union domination against the company. Upon the
merits of the case presiding judge absolved union while finding company
guilty of unfair labor practices in dismissing 46 employees thereof and
ordering said company "to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor
practice and to reinstate the 46 employees concerned, with back
wages from the date of their separation from its service until reinstated."
Ruling:
That the UNION shall have the exclusive right, and privilege to supply
the COMPANY with such laborers, employees and workers as are necessary
in the logging, mechanical, sawmill, office, logponds, motor pools,
security guards and all departments in its many phases of operations,
excepting such positions which are highly technical and confidential in
character and/or such positions which carry the exercise of authority in the
interest of the COMPANY which exercise is not merely clerical or
routinary within thecontemplation of the law, and that the COMPANY agrees
to employ or hire in any of its departments only such person or persons who
are members of the UNION.
Opinion:
The court is correct that the union has the right to dismiss the
employee on the ground of union closed shop agreement in the CBA.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
vs.
INSULAR-YEBANA TOBACCO CORPORATION,
LABRADOR, J.:
Facts:
The petitioner herein, the National Labor Union, filed charges against the respondent Insular-
Yebana Tobacco Corporation, in Court of Industrial Relations Case No. 798-ULP, alleging
discriminatory dismissal by the respondent of two employees, Juana Torres and Dominador
Gonzales, and charges for discriminatory dismissal of Honorato Gabriel in CIR Case No. 851-ULP.
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
We hold that the cases at bar having been instituted expressly as unfair labor practice cases,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Industrial Peace Act, and no unfair labor practice having been proved to
have committed, the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to grant remedy under its general
powers of mediation and conciliation, such as reinstatement or back wages, but must limit itself to
dismissing the charges of unfair labor practice. Conformably thereto, we hold that the majority of the
court below correctly dismissed the charges, without considering the merits of the claim of the two
employees, Juan Torres and Dominador Gonzales, for reinstatement.
Opinion:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Law Involved:
Case History:
Ruling:
Opinion: