SONEDCO vs URS

FACTS:

On May 6, 2002, URC Sugar Division - Southern Negros Development Corporation (URC-
SONEDCO) and Philippine Agricultural Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-
TUCP), then the exclusive bargaining representative of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file
employees, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (2002 Collective Bargaining
Agreement).

Under the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, rank-and-file employees were entitled to
a wage increase until 2006. Days after the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement was
signed, a certification election was conducted. SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union was
declared the exclusive bargaining agent of URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees.

URC-SONEDCO asked the employees who wished to avail themselves of these-benefits to

sign an acknowledgment receipt/waiver.

Several SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union members refused to sign the 2007 waiver.
Hence, they did not receive the benefits given to other members of the bargaining unit who
had done so. They filed a complaint for unfair labor practices arguing that the requirement
of a waiver before the release of the wage increase violated their right to self-organization,
collective bargaining, and concerted action.

National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals found them not guilty of
unfair labor practice since the waivers did not violate the employees' right to organize.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed unfair labor practice?

CONCLUSION:

Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals SET ASIDE. Respondent Universal
Robina Corporation. Sugar Division - Southern Negros Development Corporation is GUILTY of
unfair labor practice.

RULING:

The Court of Appeals failed to take into account that unfair labor practice not only involves
acts that violate the right to self-organization but also covers several acts enumerated in
Article 259 of the Labor Code, thus:
ARTICLE 259. [248] 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;
(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.
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

The wording of the waivers shows a clear attempt to limit petitioners' bargaining power by
making them waive the negotiations for 2007 and 2008. In stipulating that the collective
bargaining agreement that would be entered into would only be effective the year following
the 2008 waiver, respondent limited when the collective bargaining agreement could be
deemed effective. In other words, respondent asked petitioners to forego any benefits they
might have received under a collective bargaining agreement in exchange for the company-
granted benefits.

OPINION:

An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its bargaining power
is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an employer has not bargained in
good faith, the totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of negotiations must be
taken into account.

ZAMBRANO VS PHIL MANUFACTURING CORP

FACTS:

Petitioners, who were employees of private respondent Philippine Carpet Manufacturing

Corporation, were notified of the termination of their employment effective February 3,
2011 on the ground of cessation of operation due to serious business losses. They were of
the belief that their dismissal was without just cause and in violation of due process
because the closure of Phil Carpet was a mere pretense to transfer its operations to its
wholly owned and controlled corporation, Pacific Carpet Manufacturing Corporation
(PacificCarpet). They asserted that their dismissal constituted unfair labor practice as it
involved the mass dismissal of all union officers and members of the Philippine Carpet
Manufacturing Employees Association (PHILCEA). In its defense, Phil Carpet countered that
it permanently closed and totally ceased its operations because there had been a steady
decline in the demand for its products due to global recession, stiffer competition, and the
effects of a changing market. Thus, in order to stem the bleeding, the company
implemented several cost-cutting measures, including voluntary redundancy and early
retirement programs. Phil Carpet likewise faithfully complied with the requisites for closure
or cessation of business under the Labor Code. The petitioners and the Department of Labor
and Employment were served written notices one (1) month before the intended closure of
the company. The petitioners’ •were also paid their separation pay and they voluntarily
executed their respective Release and Quitclaim before the DOLE officials. In the September
29, 2014 Decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair
labor practice. The NLRC affirmed the findings of the LA, which was subsequently affirmed
by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners’ termination from employment constitutes unfair labor
practice?

CONCLUSION:

Petition is DENIED. Decision of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED in toto.

RULING:

No. The dismissal of the petitioners did not amount to unfair labor practice. Unfair labor
practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize. There should be no dispute
that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the
workers' right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfair
labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his
employees to self-organize. The general principle is that one who makes an allegation has
the burden of proving it. The petitioners miserably failed to discharge the duty imposed
upon them. They did not identify the acts of Phil Carpet, which, they claimed, constituted
unfair labor practice. They did not even point out the specific provisions, which Phil Carpet
violated.

OPINION: