Sie sind auf Seite 1von 26

MIDTERM DOCTRINES (CASES 1-97) the means to be used in reaching such an end.

I. CONSITITUTIONAL PROTECTION 4. Manila Golf vs. NLRC

1. PASEI vs. Drilon Caddies – not employees – no control

- Deployment Ban of Female Domestic Helper; A decision in a certification case does not foreclose
Concept of Police Power. all further dispute between the parties as to the
existence, or non-existence, of employer-employee
The concept of police power is well-established in relationship between them.
this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere 5. Tan vs. Lagrama
with personal liberty or property in order to
promote the general welfare." Painter (urinates in his office) – not an
independent contractor, employee (apply
As defined, it consists of
(1) an imposition of requisites)
restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to
foster the common good. In determining whether there is an employer-
employee relationship, we have applied a “four-
It is not capable of an exact definition but has fold test,” to wit:
been, purposely, veiled in general terms to
underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. "Its (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of
scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of selection and engagement of employees;
the times, even to anticipate the future where it
(2) whether he has control of the employee with
could be done, provides enough room for an
respect to the means and methods by which work
efficient and flexible response to conditions and
is to be accomplished;
circumstances thus assuring the greatest
benefits." (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and
2. Brew Master vs. NAFLU (4) whether the employee was paid wages.
Route helper- absent without permission – 1 6. Tongko vs. Manufacturer’s Life
month (lumayas ung asawa, inuwi mga anak sa
Samar) Insurance agents – remained an agent, not an
employee
Absence Without Leave; While an employee’s
failure to inform and seek his employer’s approval Control not only applies to the work or goal to be
of an absence which, under the circumstances is done but also to the means and methods to
justifiable, is an omission which must be corrected accomplish it; Not all forms of control would
and chastised, the same does not merit the establish an employer-employee relationship.
severest penalty of dismissal from the service.
7. Insular Life vs. NLRC
II. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
Commission agent – independent contractor
3. LVN vs. Philippine Musicians Guild
Not every form of control over the conduct of the
Musicians in the company – considered employees party hired in relation to the service rendered
- control test - entitled to join union establishes employer-employee relationship.
The relationship exists where the person for whom When an insurance agent is free to adopt his own
the services are performed reserves a right to selling methods or is free to sell insurance at his
control not only the end to be achieved but also own time, he is an independent contractor.
8. Brotherhood Labor Movement vs. Zamora does not have substantial capital or investment
in the form of tools, equipment, machineries,
Cargadores/pahinante at the SMC plant – work premises, among others; and
loading, unloading, piling or palleting empty
bottles and woosen shells to and from company (2) the workers recruited and placed by such
trucks and warehouses. person are performing activities which are
directly related to the principal business of such
In determining the existence of an employer- employer.
employee relationship, the elements that are
generally considered are the following: (a) the Distinction between Articles 106 and 107 lies in
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the the fact that Article 106 deals with "labor-only"
payment of wages; (Q) the power of dismissal; and contracting; on the other hand, Article 107 deals
(d) the employer’s power to control the employee with "job contracting".
with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished. It is the so called The distinction between Articles 106 and 107 lies
“control test” that is the most important element. in the fact that Article 106 deals with "labor-only"
contracting. Here, by operation of law. the
9. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN contractor is merely considered as an agent of the
employer, who is deemed "responsible to the
Talent for radio and television – independent workers to the same extent as if the latter were
contractor – ABS not involved in the actual directly employed by him."
performance that produced the finished product
On the other hand, Article 107 deals with "job
Existence of an employer-employee relationship is contracting." In the later situation, while the
a question of fact; Appellate courts accord the contractor himself is the direct employer of the
factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC employees, the employer is deemed, by operation
not only respect but also finality when supported of law, as an indirect employer.
by substantial evidence; Court does not substitute
its own judgment for that of the tribunal in 11.Vinoya vs. NLRC
determining where the weight of evidence lies or
what evidence is credible. RFC (true employer) – despite the existence of
the alleged contracts of service and employment
III. JOB CONTRACTING & LABOR-ONLY – status of petitioner as employees not affected.
CONTRACTING
Labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an
10.Baguio vs. NLRC arrangement where the contractor or
subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
Carpenters, masons, laborers – hired to workers to perform a job, work or service for a
construct an annex building for the corporation’s principal.
plant
In labor-only contracting, the following elements
– not employees – work performed by them are are present:
not related to the principal business of
corporation (a) The contractor or subcontractor does not have
substantial capital or investment to actually
Classification of employment; When is a person perform the job, work or service under its own
deemed to be engaged in "labor-only" contracting. account and responsibility;
A person is deemed to be engaged in "labor- (b) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by
only" contracting where such contractor or subcontractor are performing
activities which are directly related to the main
(1) the person supplying workers to an employer business of the principal.
Permissible job contracting or subcontracting necessary in the conduct of its principal
refers to an arrangement whereby a principal business.
agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or
subcontractor the performance or completion of a Where the control of the principal is limited only
specific job, work or service within a definite or to the result of the work, independent job
predetermined period, regardless of whether such contracting exists.
job, work or service is to be performed or
completed within or outside the premises of the IV. EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION &/OR
principal. STATUS

12.Neri vs. NLRC and FEBTC 15.Price vs. Innodata, Phils., Inc.

Janitorial and other specific services – not Data encoders, formatters, programmers –
employees – independent contractors to perform regular employees – engaged to perform
special services activities which are necessary/desirable in the
usual business/trade of employer, regardless of
While the services may be considered directly length of service (1st type of regular employees)
related to the principal business of the employer,
nevertheless, they are not necessary in the conduct The employment status of a person is defined and
of the principal business of the employer. prescribed by law and not by what the parties say
it should be.
13.SMC vs. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc.
The applicable test to determine whether an
Petitioners – washed and segregated empty employment should be considered regular or non-
bottles used by SMC to sell and distribute its regular is the reasonable connection between the
beer beverages to the consuming public – paid particular activity performed by the employee in
per piece or pakiao basis relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer.
- Employees of SMC – MAERC is labor only
contractor, acts merely as an agent of SMC 16. Biboso vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc.
No. L-44360. March 31, 1977
Jurisprudential holdings were to the effect that in Academic teachers – not notified by school
determining the existence of an independent that they are not going to be rehired
contractor relationship, several factors may be
considered, such as, but not necessarily confined
to, whether the contractor was carrying on an The employer may terminate the employment of
independent business; the nature and extent of the teachers on probationary status after their
work; the skill required; the term and duration of contracts have expired.
the relationship; the right to assign the
performance of specified pieces of work; the The security of tenure provision of the
control and supervision of the workers; the power Constitution applies to probationary
of the employer with respect to the hiring, firing employees during the duration of their
and payment of the workers of the contractor; the employment and before their contracts of
control of the premises; the duty to supply probationary employment expire. 

premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor;
and the mode, manner and terms of payment.

14. Sasan vs. NLRC

Janitorial/messengerial and maintenance


services – services performed directly related to
the principal business of bank but they are not
has the qualifications to meet the reasonable
standards for permanent employment.
17. International Catholic Migration
Commission vs. NLRC G.R. No. 72222. 18. Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr. No. L-63316. July 31,
January 30, 1989 1984

Probationary cultural orientation teacher – Employed with the duty of soliciting


terminated for failure to meet the advertisements for inclusion in the telephone
prescribed standards directory

Failure to qualify as a regular employee in 18-months’ probationary period for telephone or


accordance with reasonable standards of sales representatives, legal and valid; Reason;
the employer is a just cause for Stipulation in contracts of employment that the
terminating a probationary employee; representatives shall be on probationary status for
Monetary award, not justified due to the 18 months, not contrary to law, morals and public
express finding that their was no illegal policy
dismissal.
19. Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs.
Meanings of “probationary employee” and Leogardo, Jr. G.R. No. 74246. January 26, 1989
“probationary"
A probationary
employee, as understood under Article The employer and the employee may by
282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code, agreement extend the probationary period
is one who is on trial by an employer of employment beyond the 6-months
during which 
the employer determines period in Art. 282 of the Labor Code.
whether or not he is qualified for
permanent employment. A probationary The extension of the employee’s probation was
appointment is made to afford the an act of liberality by the employer
employer and opportunity to observe the affording him a second chance to make
fitness of a probationer while at work, good after having failed to prove his worth
and to ascertain 
whether he will become as an employee.
a proper and efficient employee.
The
The employee’s agreement to the extension of
word “probationary”, as used to describe
the probationary period is a waiver of any
the period of 
employment, implies the
benefit that attached to the completion of
purpose of the term or period, but not its
said period if he failed to make the grade
length.
during the extension period; Voluntary
- Essence of a “probationary period of agreements to extend the employee’s
employment
Being in the nature of a “trial period of probation, not prohibited. 

period” the essence of a probationary period of
20. Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC G.R. No.
employment fundamentally lies in the purpose
109114. September 14, 1993 

or objective sought to be attained by both the
employer and the employee during said period. Probationary period shall not exceed 6 months
in accordance with Article 281 of the Labor
The length of time is immaterial in determining
Code 
- Probation is the period where the
the correlative rights of both in dealing with each
employer determines if employee is
other during said period.
qualified for the inclusion in the regular
While the employer, as stated earlier, observes force. 
- Even when the employee had
the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a undergone on-the-job training and her
probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified services were continued six months
for permanent employment, the probationer, on thereafter, said employee had become
the other, seeks to prove to the employer that he regular and had acquired full security of
tenure. 
- Double probation is a an opportunity to observe the fitness of a
circumvention of the rule on probationary probationer while at work, and to
employment. Where an employee was not ascertain whether he would be a proper
terminated on the probation period, the and efficient employee.
same may be dismissed only on legal
grounds and according to rules. The length of time the probationary employee
remains on probation depends on the
21. St. Theresita's Academy vs. NLRC G.R. No. parties’ agreement, but it shall not exceed
94523.October 27, 1992 six (6) months under Article 281 of the
Labor Code, unless it is covered by an
Teacher – 22 continuous years – retired – apprenticeship agreement stipulating a
rehired became probationary – illegally longer period. 

dismissed
24. Caseres vs. Universal Robina Sugar
Full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) Milling Corporation (URSUMCO) G.R. No.
years of satisfactory service are considered 159343. September 28, 2007
permanent.
Employees – made to sign a Contract of
22. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. vs. Magtibay, Employment for Specific Project/Undertaking
Jr. G.R. No. 164532. July 27, 2007
Project Employees; The principal test for
Employee – hired to assist the regular phone determining whether an employee is a project
operator – dismissed for violating company rules employee or a regular employee is whether the
and policies (allowing lover to enter inside the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
telephone operator’s booth and failure to meet undertaking, the completion or termination of
standards prescribed by company) which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee;
Within the limited legal six-month probationary
period, probationary employees are still entitled A project employee is one whose employment has
to security tenure; been fixed for a specific project or undertaking,
the completion or termination of which has been
Two Grounds for Terminating a Probationary determined at the time of the engagement of the
Employee: employee or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the
(a) For just cause, or
employment is for the duration of the season.
(b) When he fails to qualify as a regular
The fact the petitioners were constantly re-hired
employee in accordance with reasonable
does not ipso facto establish that they became
standards made known by the employer to the
regular employees; These support the conclusion
employee at the time of his engagement.
that they were indeed project employees, and
All employees, be they regular or probationary, since their work depended on the availability of
are expected to comply with company-imposed such contracts or projects, necessarily the
rules and regulations. employment of respondent’s work force was not
permanent but co-terminous with the projects to
23. Canadian Opportunities Unlimited vs. which they were assigned and from whose
Dalangin G.R. No. 172223. February 6, 2012 payrolls they were paid.

Hired as an Immigration and Legal Manager – 25. De Leon vs. National Labor Relations
terminated because unfit and unqualified Commission G.R. No. 70705. August 21, 1989
to continue
Hired as maintenance man – mainly assigned to
A probationary appointment gives the employer paint the building – asked to be considered as
regular (hired for more than 1 year)

Regular Employment; When the activities 27. Pure Foods Corporation vs. NLRC G.R. No.
performed by the employee are usually necessary 122653. December 12, 1997
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, the employment is deemed regular Petitioners – hired in the tuna cannery plant –
notwithstanding contrary agreements.
- work consisted in the receiving, skinning,
Determination of whether employment is casual loining, packing, and casing-up tuna fish
or regular does not depend on the will or word of
the employer, and the procedure for hiring and “Specific Project or Undertaking,” Explained;
manner of paying, but on the nature of the The fact that an employer repeatedly and
activities performed by the employee, and to some continuously hired workers to do the same
extent, the length of performance, and its kind of work as that performed by those
continued existence. whose contracts had expired negates its
contention that those workers were hired
26. Kimberly Independent Labor Union For for a specific project or undertaking only.
Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-
Organized Labor Association In Line The scheme of an employer in hiring
Industries And Agriculture vs. Drilon G.R. No. workers on a uniformly fixed contract basis
77629. May 9, 1990 and replacing them upon the expiration of
their contracts with other workers on the
64 employees are considered regular at the time same employment status was apparently
of the certification election designed to prevent the “casual” employees
from attaining the status of a regular
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for two employee. 

kinds of regular employees —The law thus
provides for two kinds of regular employees, 28. Magsalin vs. National Organization of
namely: Working Men G.R. No. 148492. May 9,
2003
(1) those who are engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the Sales route helpers (SRH) – hired to substitute
usual business or trade of the employer; and the regular SRH when unavailable or unexpected
shortage of manpower occurs
(2) those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with In determining whether an employment should be
respect to the activity in which they are considered regular or non-regular, the applicable
employed. test is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in
- It is more in keeping with the relation to the usual business or trade of the
intent and spirit of the law to rule that the employer.
status of regular employment attached to
the casual worker on the day immediately The nature of the work performed must be viewed
after the end of his first year of service. from a perspective of the business or trade in its
entirety and not on a confined scope.
- As long as the employee has
rendered at least one year of service, he 29. Millares vs. NLRC G.R. No. 110524. July 29
becomes a regular employee with respect 2002
to the activity in which he is employed. 

Seafarers are considered contractual employees.
They cannot be considered as regular
employees under Article 280 of the Labor
Code.
There are certain forms of employment which
also require the performance of usual and
desirable functions and which exceed one 32. Cielo vs. NLRC 
G.R. No. 78693. January
year but do not necessarily attain regular 28, 1991
employment status under Article 280.
Petitioner – truck driver – illegally dismissed
Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and (expired contract) – considered regular
Regulations of the POEA; Contract of by the Court (employer engaged in
seamen shall be for a fixed period, not trucking business – requires the services
longer than 12 months. 
 of drivers)

C. TERM
 There is no question that the purpose behind the


individual contracts was to evade the
30. Brent School vs. Zamora 
G.R. No. L- application of the labor laws by making it
48494. February 5, 1990 appear that the drivers of the trucking
company were not its regular employees;
Athletic director – fixed 5 years – alleged that
there was no fixed period stipulated in his Where from the circumstances it is
contract apparent that periods have been imposed
to preclude acquisition of tenurial security
Before the advent of the Labor Code, term by the employee, they should be struck
employment was impliedly but clearly down or disregarded as contrary to public
recognized under R.A. 1052, as amended by policy, morals, etc.
R.A. 1787.
It is settled that the probationary employee
The decisive determinant in term employment is cannot be removed except also for cause as
not the nature of the activities performed provided by law.
by the employee, but the “day certain”
agreed upon by the parties for the 33. Philippine Village Hotel vs. NLRC
commencement and termination of their G.R. No. 105033. February 28, 1994
employment relationship.
Hotel closed due to financial and business
Stipulations in employment contracts providing reverses – resulting in termination – in an
for “term employment” or “fixed period attempt to re-open, company conducted a trial
employment” are valid when the period period where petitioners agree to work for only
where agreed upon knowingly, and 1 month trial period – later alleges that they
voluntarily by the parties without force, were illegally dismissed
duress or improper pressure exerted on the
employee; and when such stipulations were
not designed to circumvent the laws on Contracts with a fixed or specific period valid.
security of tenure. 

Validity of a contract of employment with a
31. Pakistan Air Lines vs. Ople 
G.R. No. fixed or specific period, we have 
held that
61594. September 28, 1990
 the decisive determinant in term
employment should not be the activities
Flight Stewardesses – fixed term contract – that the employee is called upon to
alleged illegal dismissal perform, but the day certain agreed upon
by the parties for the commencement and
A contract providing for employment with a termination of their employment
fixed period was not 
necessarily unlawful relationship, a day certain being

 understood to be that which must
necessarily come, although it may not be
known when. The term period was further indefinite period. If they are employed in a
defined to be the length of existence; particular project, the completion of the
duration. project or of any phase thereof will not
mean severance of employer-employee
Validly terminated employees are not deemed to relationship.”
- Failure of the employer to
continue their regular employment status report to the nearest employment office
if they are subsequently reemployed. the termination of workers every time a
project is completed proves that the
While it is true that security of tenure is a employees are not project employees.
constitutionally guaranteed right of the
employees, it does not, however, mean 36. ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC
perpetual employment for the employee. G.R. No. 109902. August 2, 1994
The services of project employees are co-

D. PROJECT
 terminus with the project and may be
terminated upon the end or completion of
34. Cartagenas vs. Romago Electric 
G.R. No.
the project for which they were hired.
82973. September 15, 1989
Principal test for determining whether
Individual complainants – were temporarily laid-
particular employees are properly
off - there would be a resumption of operation
characterized as “project employees” as
Petitioners are not regular employees but merely distinguished from “regular employees,” is
project employees considering that the duration of whether or not the “project employees”
their employment is not permanent but is co- were assigned to carry out “specific project
terminus with the projects to which they are or undertaking”, the duration (and scope)
assigned and from whose payrolls they are paid. of which were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that project.
35. Fernandez vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 106090. February 28, 1994 The basic requisite is that the designation of
Generally, there are two types of employees in named employees as “project employees”
the construction industry, namely 1) and their assignment to a specific project,
Project Employees and 2) Non-project are effected and implemented in good
Employees. “Project employees are those faith.
employed in connection with a particular
It has been held that the length of service of a
construction project. Non-project
project employee is not the controlling test
employees are those employed by a
of employment tenure but whether or not
construction company without reference to
the employment has been fixed for a
a particular project.
specific project or undertaking
Art. 280 is not applicable to “project” employees.
Second paragraph of Article 282 of the Labor
Proviso deems as regular employees only
Code, providing that an employee who
those “casual” employees who have
served for at least one (1) year, shall be
rendered at least one year of service
considered a regular employee, relates to
regardless of the fact that such service may
casual employees, not to project employees.
be continuous or broken.

Policy Instruction No. 20 reads: “Members of a
E. SEASONAL

work pool from which a construction
company draws its project employees, if 37. Mercado vs. NLRC 
G.R. No. 79869.
considered employees of the construction September 5, 1991
company while in the work pool, are non-
project employees or employees for an Administrative decision in matters within the
executive’s jurisdiction can only be set
aside upon proof of gross abuse of 39. Philippine-Singapore Transit vs.
discretion, fraud or error of law. NLRC
Private respondent – master of the vessel
An employee is deemed regular where he is – repatriated and eventually someone
engaged in necessary or desirable activities took over his post – returned to Manila
in the usual business or trade of the An employer is free to manage and
employer, except for project employees. regulate, according to his own discretion
and judgment, all phases of employment,
Petitioners being project employees or to which includes hiring, work assignments,
use the correct term seasonal employees, working methods, time, place and manner
their employment legally ends upon of work, supervision of workers, working
completion of the project or the season. 
 regulations, transfer of employees, lay-off
of workers, and the discipline, dismissal
38. Hacienda Fatima vs. NFSW- Food and
and recall of work. While the law
General Trade 
G.R. No. 149440.
recognizes and safeguards this right of an
January 28, 2003
employer to exercise what are clearly
Petitioner disfavored that employees formed a management prerogatives, such right
union – refused to sit down and negotiate should not be abused and used as a tool of
a CBA oppression against labor. The company's
prerogatives must be exercised in good
De Leon v. NLRC, in which this Court held: “The faith and with due regard to the rights of
primary standard, therefore, of labor. A priori, they are not absolute
determining regular employment is the prerogatives but are subject to legal
reasonable connection between the limits, collective bargaining agreements
particular activity performed by the and the general principles of fair play and
employee in relation to the usual trade or justice.
business of the employer. The test is
whether the former is usually necessary or 40. PT&T (Philippine Telegraph &
desirable in the usual trade or business of Telephone Corp.) vs. Laplana
the employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of Cashier in Baguio – transfer to Laoag/Manila –
the work performed and its relation to the refused – resigned
scheme of the particular business or trade
in its entirety. Also if the employee has Employer has the inherent right to transfer
been performing the job for at least a year, or assign an employee in the pursuit of its
even if the performance is not continuous legitimate business interest subject only to
and merely intermittent, the law deems the condition that it be not motivated by
repeated and continuing need for its discrimination or bad faith.
performance as sufficient evidence of the
necessity if not indispensability of that 41. Yuco Chemicals vs. Minister of
activity to the business. Hence, the Labor
employment is considered regular, but only
with respect to such activity and while such Aluminum handles for ice boxes
activity exists. (discrimation)

The burden is on the employer to prove Transfer; Court has recognized and upheld
that the termination was for a valid and the prerogative of management to transfer
authorized cause. an employee from one office to another
within the business establishment provided
V. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES that there is no demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salary, benefits and other
privileges. Employer may terminate an employment
for serious misconduct or for fraud or
Managerial prerogative to transfer willful breach by the employee of the trust
personnel must be exercised without grave reposed in him by his employer.
abuse of discretion and putting in mind the
basic elements of justice and fair play.

42. Almodiel vs. NLRC 45. Farrol vs. CA

CPA – abolished position (redundancy) – Employer’s rules cannot preclude the State
replaced from inquiring whether the strict and rigid
application or interpretation thereof
Discretion in terminating employment; An would be harsh to the employee.
employer has a much wider discretion in
terminating employment relationship of It should be noted that the term “trust and
managerial personnel compared to rank confidence” is restricted to managerial
and file employees. employees; Cash shortages in a cashier’s
work may happen, and when there is no
Prerogatives of Management; The proof that the same was deliberately done
determination of the qualification and for a fraudulent or wrongful purpose, it
fitness of workers for hiring and firing, cannot constitute breach of trust so as to
promotion or reassignment are exclusive render the dismissal from work invalid.
prerogatives of management.
46. Phil Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. NLRC
43. Caltex Refinery vs. NLRC
PAL new Code of Discipline
Mechanic – saw a bottle of Clarete in his
bag (item recovered) Company rules on discipline; Management
prerogative not boundless.
Prerogative of employers to regulate all
aspects of employment subject to the Line drawn between policies which are
limitation of special law is recognized. purely business-oriented and those which
affect rights of employees.
The right of the employer must not be
exercised arbitrarily and without just 47. Star Paper Corp. vs. Simbol
cause. Otherwise, the constitutional
mandate of security of tenure of the Management Prerogatives; Employer
workers would be rendered nugatory. Policies; Nepotism; It is true that the policy
of the petitioners prohibiting close
Penalty of dismissal must commensurate relatives from working in the same
with the act, conduct or omission imputed company takes the nature of an anti-
to the employee and imposed in connection nepotism employment policy.
with the employer’s disciplinary authority.
The failure to prove a legitimate business
44. Firestone Tire and Rubber vs. concern in imposing an employer policy
Lariosa cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be
free from arbitrary discrimination based
Tire builder – entrusted with his certain upon stereotypes of married persons
materials – uses a few swabs but keeps working together in one company.
the rest
48. Duncan Association of Detailman until and unless the rules or orders
vs. Glaxo Welcome Phil., Inc. imposed by the employers are declared to
be illegal or improper by competent
Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee authority, the employees ignore or disobey
from having a relationship with an them at their peril.
employee of a competitior company is a
valid exercise of management prerogative. 51. UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio Jr.
G.R. No. 131235. November 16, 1999
While our laws endeavor to give life to the
constitutional policy on social justice and General assembly was held
the protection of labor, it does not mean wherein USTFU’s officers were elected by
that every labor dispute will be decided in clapping of hands and acclamation
favor of the workers; The law also
recognizes that management has rights Right to Self-Organization; Unions;
which are also entitled to respect and Employees have the right to form, join or
enforcement in the interest of fair play. assist labor organizations for the purpose
of collective bargaining or for their mutual
Glaxo does not impose an absolute aid and protection.
prohibition against relationships between
its employees and those of competitor To become a union member, an
companies; What the company merely employee must, as a rule, not only signify
seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest the intent to become one, but also to take
between the employee and the company some positive steps to realize that intent.
that may arise out of such relationships.
Members’ frustration over the
performance of the union officers, as well
49. Union of Nestle Workers CDO as their fears of a “fraudulent” election to
Factory vs. Nestle Philippines be held under the latter’s supervision,
could not justify the disregard of the
Simultaneous drug tests on all employees union’s constitution and by-laws.
from different factories and plants – employees
refused (conducted during the height of war on An employee belonging to the
drugs) appropriate bargaining unit but who is not
a member of the union cannot vote in the
Personnel Policies; Drug Testing; Company union election, unless otherwise authorized
personnel policies are guiding principles by the constitution and by-laws of the
stated in broad, long-range terms that union—union affairs and elections cannot
express the philosophy or beliefs of an be decided in a non-union activity.
organization’s top authority regarding
personnel matters. A union’s constitution and by-laws
embody a covenant between a union and
50. GTE Directories vs. Sanchez its members and constitute the
fundamental law governing the members’
The practice was for its sales rights and obligations.
representatives to be given work assignments
within specific territories by the so- called "draw Collective Bargaining Agreements;
method. Ratification of a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement executed between the new
Deliberate disregard or disobedience of officers of the union and management does
rules, defiance of management authority not have the effect of validating a void
by the employees cannot be countenanced, union election—the ratification refers only
to the terms of the new Collective employees are those who (1) assist or act
Bargaining Agreement, not the issue of in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons
union leadership. who formulate, determine, and effectuate
management policies in the field of labor
52. Reyes vs Trajano relations. The two criteria are cumulative,
G.R. No. 84433. June 2, 1992 and both must be met if an employee is to
be considered a confidential employee—
INK votes were being questioned that is, the confidential relationship must
because they don’t have a union and exist between the employee and his
didn’t vote during the previous elections supervisor, and the supervisor must
handle the prescribed responsibilities
The right to self-organization relating to labor relations.
includes the right not to form or join a
union. Reason behind the confidential
employee rule.— The exclusion from
The purpose of a certification bargaining units of employees who, in the
election is precisely the ascertainment of normal course of their duties, become
the wishes of the majority of the aware of management policies relating to
employees in the appropriate bargaining labor relations is a principal objective
unit. sought to be accomplished by the
“confidential employee rule.” The broad
INK employees have the right to rationale behind this rule is that employees
participate in a certification election and should not be placed in a position involving
vote for "No Union." a potential conflict of interests.
“Management should not be required to
Failure to take part in previous handle labor relations matters through
elections no bar to right to participate in employees who are represented by the
future elections. union with which the company is
required to deal and who in the normal
53. Sampang vs Inciong performance of their duties may obtain
G.R. No. L-50992. June 19, 1985 advance information of the company’s
position with regard to contract
Dismissal of president of a labor negotiations, the disposition of
union who has worked for the company for grievances, or other labor relations
30 years on the ground that she instigated matters.”
laborers not to work overtime for two days
resulting in the loss of cigarettes worth 55. Benguet Electric Cooperative vs
P2,716.00 is too disproportionate. Ferrer-Calleja
G.R. No. 79025. December 29, 1989
54. SMC Supervisors vs Laguesma
Cooperatives; Collective bargaining;
Supervisory employees filed a CE among The right to collective bargaining is not
the employees of 3 plants. Contested that available to an employee of a cooperative
they fall under confidential employees who at the same time is a member and co-
(NO) and can three diff plants employees owner thereof; Employees who are neither
can form a single bargaining unit (YES, if members nor co-owners of the cooperative
the communal/mutual interest not are entitled to exercise the rights to self-
sacrificed) organization, collective bargaining and
negotiation
Criteria to Determine who are
Confidential Employees.—Confidential
The fact that the members enjoy the constitutional right to self-
employees of the cooperative do not organization and collective bargaining
participate in its actual management does
not make them, eligible to form, assist or A “bargaining unit” has been
join a labor organization; It is the fact of defined as a group of employees of a
ownership of the cooperative, not given employer, comprised of all or less
involvement in management, which than all of the entire body of employees,
disqualifies a member from joining any which the collective interest of all the
labor organization within the cooperative. employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicate to be the best suited to
56. International Catholic Migration serve the reciprocal rights and duties of
Commission vs Calleja the parties under the collective
G.R. No. 85750. September 28, 1990 bargaining provisions of the law.

Validity of claim of immunity by “‘Managerial employee’ is one who


ICMC & IRRI (they are not under our labor is vested with power or prerogatives to
laws) lay down and execute management
policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend,
Section 31 of the Convention on lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
the Privileges and Immunities of the discipline employees.
Specialized Agencies of the United Supervisory employees are those who, in
Nations provides that "each specialized the interest of the employer, effectively
agency shall make provision for recommend such managerial actions if
appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) the exercise of such authority is not
disputes arising out of contracts or other merely routinary or clerical in nature but
disputes of private character to which the requires the use of independent
specialized agency is a party." Moreover, judgment.
pursuant to Article IV of the
Memorandum of Agreement between All employees not falling within
ICMC and the Philippine Government, any of the above definitions are
whenever there is any abuse of privilege considered rank and-file employees for
by ICMC, the Government is free to purposes of this Book.”
withdraw the privileges and immunities
accorded. The monthly paid office and
technical employees, accountants and
IRRI employees have recourse to the cashiers of the petitioner are not
Council of lRRI Employees and managerial employees.
Management (CIEM) in cases affecting
employer-employee relations. The decision in Golden Farms Inc.
vs. Honorable Pura Ferrer-Calleja does not
57. Golden Farms vs Secretary of Labor pose any obstacle in holding a certification
G.R. No. 102130. July 26, 1994 election among petitioner’s monthly paid
rank and file employees; Principle of res
Golden Farms stated that monthly judicata is inapplicable. The issue brought
paid employees should just join the union to fore in that case was totally different,
of the daily paid employees i.e., whether or not petitioner’s
confidential employees, considering the
Right to Self-organization; The monthly nature of their work, should be included
paid office and technical rank-and-file in the bargaining unit of the daily paid
employees of petitioner Golden Farms rank-and-file employees. In the case at
bench, the monthly paid rank-and-file
employees of petitioner are being Article 242 enumerates the
separated as a bargaining unit from its exclusive rights of a legitimate labor
daily paid rank-and file employees, on the organization among which is the right to
ground that they have different interest to be certified as the exclusive representative
protect. of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purposes of
The general rule is that an collective bargaining.
employee has no standing to question a
certification election since this is the sole Legitimate labor organization
concern of the workers. defined.— Meanwhile, Article 212(h)
defines a legitimate labor organization as
58. PAFLU vs Secretary of Labor "any labor organization duly registered
G.R. No. L-22228. February 27, 1969 with the DOLE and includes any branch or
local thereof."
SSSEA failed to submit reports on
the finances of the union and the names, A labor organization acquires
postal addresses, and non-subversive legitimacy only upon registration with the
affidavits of the officers of the union BLR.

Labor unions; Obligation to submit When an unregistered union


financial statement is a reasonable becomes a branch, local or chapter of a
regulation. federation, some of the aforementioned
requirements for registration are no longer
Association or union of workers, to required.
be registered must file with the
Department of Labor the following The intent of the law in imposing
requirements: lesser requirements in the case of a branch
(1) copy of the constitution and or local of a registered federation or
by-laws; national union is to encourage the
(2) sworn statement of the officers affiliation of a local union with a
that they are not members of the federation, or national union in order to
Communist Party, and (3) the years increase the local union's bargaining
of existence of the union and last annual powers respecting terms and conditions of
financial report. Labor.

59. Progressive Development Corp vs The certification and attestation


Secretary of DOLE requirements are preventive measures
against the commission of fraud.
Kilusan filed CE alleging it is a
legitimate labor org (LLO) and there was no A local or chapter therefore
existing CBA and LLO. PDC contends that becomes a legitimate labor organization
kilusan failed to comply w/ consti & by laws, only upon submission of the following to
names, address & list officers/members, the BLR:
books of accounts 1) A charter certificate, within 30
days from its issuance by the labor
Labor Organization; Certification federation or national union, and
Election; Court has repeatedly stressed 2) The constitution and by-laws, a
that the holding of a certification election statement on the set of officers, and the
is based on a statutory policy that cannot books of accounts all of which are
be circumvented. certified under oath by the secretary or
treasurer, as the case may be, of such
local or chapter, and attested to by its Respondent a LLO filed CE,
president. Absent compliance with these petitioner opposed stating that list of
mandatory requirements, the local or members submitted is defective because
chapter does not become a legitimate it included the names & signatures of
labor organization. resigned, terminated, & AWOL employees
of the Country Club Inc which is distinct
Failure of the secretary of PDEU- from petitioner
Kilusan to certify the required documents
under oath is fatal to its acquisition of a Only way to question LLO having a BLR
legitimate status. registration is to file a petition for
cancellation of union registration. Until
Where the petition for certification the status is not resolved, it will continue.
election was filed by the federation which
is merely an agent, the petition is deemed
to be filed by the chapter, the principal Certification Elections; After a certificate of
which must be a legitimate labor registration is issued to a union, its legal
organization personality cannot be subject to collateral
attack.
60. Pagpalain Haulers Inc. vs Trajano The inclusion in a union of disqualified
employees is not among the grounds for
The Labor Code does not require cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to
the submission of books of account in order misrepresentation, false statement or
for a labor organization to be registered as fraud.
a legitimate labor organization Where the employer alleges that some
signatures in the petition for certification
Department Order No.9 has been election were obtained through fraud, false
issued on authority of law. Under the law, statement and misrepresentation, the
the Secretary is authorized to promulgate proper procedure is for said employer to
rules and regulations to implement the file a petition for cancellation of the
Labor Code. Specifically, Article 5 of the certificate of registration, and not to
Labor Code provides that “[t]he intervene in a petition for certification
Department of Labor and other election.
government agencies charged with the The best forum for determining whether
administration and enforcement of this there were indeed retractions from some of
Code or any of its parts shall promulgate the laborers is in the certification election
the necessary implementing rules and itself wherein the workers can freely
regulations.” Consonant with this article, express their choice in a secret ballot.
the Secretary of Labor and Employment Designation should be reconciled with the
promulgated the Omnibus Rules actual job description of the employees—
Implementing the Labor Code. By virtue the mere fact that an employee is
of this self-same authority, the Secretary designated manager does not necessarily
amended the abovementioned omnibus make him one.
rules by issuing Department Order No. 9,
Series of 1997. 62. Federation Obrera de la Industria
Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de
61. Tagaytay Highlands International Filipinas vs. Noriel No. L-41937. July 6,
Golf Club Incorporated vs. Tagaytay 1976.
Highlands Employees Union-PTGWO
G.R. No. 142000. January 22, 2003 FFW filed CE alleging it has the
support of 30% of the employees of the
company. Latter alleged that there were
13 retracted employees which means that
the 30% was not complied with it is only fact finding that is why there’s
no res judicata.
All employees regardless of status
may vote in CE Res Judicata; Court’s pronouncement in the
Manila Golf case that the decision in a
Certification election; Employees have the certification election case does not
constitutional right to choose which labor foreclose further dispute regarding the
organization to join. existence or non-existence of an employer-
Labor must be represented by a union that employee relationship not an obiter
can express its collective will. dictum.
Where a petition for certification election Requisites for res judicata to apply the
has the support of more than 30% of the following requisites must concur:
(1) the
rank-and-file employees, it becomes former judgment or order must be
mandatory to hold a certification election. final;
(2) the court which rendered said
judgment or order must have jurisdiction
63. Philippine Fruits and Vegetables over the subject matter and the
Industries, Inc. vs. Torres G.R. No. parties;
(3) said judgment or order must
92391. July 3, 1992 be on the merits; and
(4) there must be
between the first and second actions
Sec of Labor affirmed the Med identity of parties,
Arbiter’s decision in certifying TUPAS as subject matter and cause of action
SEBA of petitioner. Latter contends that
the voters being questioned were not 65. Confederation of Citizens Labor Unions
regular/seasonal employees. vs. Noriel No. L-56902. September 21,
1982
Terminated employee may still
vote provided that there’s a pending case CE was invalid because it was held
w/ reinstatement outside the company premises and not all
of the employees were allowed to vote.
Meaning of “Close of election proceedings.”
- refers to that period from the closing of Circumstances showing irregularities in
the polls to the counting and tabulation of the holding of the certification election
the votes as it could not have been the sufficient to invalidate the same.
intention of the Implementing Rules to Purpose of a certification election: to give
include in the term “close of the election employees “true representation in their
proceedings” the period for the final collective bargaining with an employer.”
determination of the challenged votes and
the canvass thereof, as in the case at bar 66. NACUSIP-TUCP vs. Trajano 208
which may take a very long period. SCRA 118
One-day deficiency in giving notice of
holding of certification election is bars to CE: chronological order
insignificant where compelling majority
took part in election. 1. Certification bar rule: 1yr when union
Employer has no role in certification wins, no CE be petitioned.
election except when asked to bargain
collectively under the “Bystander Rule.” 2. Deadlock bar rule: for conciliation.
Depends on how long it is resolved
64. Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. Pepito
G.R. No. 143428. June 25, 2001 3. Contract bar rule: no CE unless 60 day
freedom period.
Code, providing that the decision of the
There was a deadlock filed. Subsequently a Secretary of Labor shall be final and
petition for CE was filed by the union. Not executory, cannot be construed to mean
allowed since there was already a deadlock on that the decision of the Secretary cannot be
going reconsidered since the same is reviewable
by writ of certiorari under Rule 65.
A petition for certification election may be
filed at any time, in the absence of a Check-Offs;A check-off is a process or
collective bargaining agreement. device whereby the employer, on
Otherwise put, the rule prohibits the filing agreement with the Union, recognized as
of a petition for certification election in the proper bargaining representative, or
the following cases: on prior authorization from its employees,
(1) during the existence of a collective deducts union dues or agency fees from the
bargaining agreement except within the latter’s wages and remits them directly to
freedom period; the union; The system of check-off is
(2) within one (1) year from the date of primarily for the benefit of the Union and
issuance of declaration of a final only indirectly, for the individual
certification election result; or employees.
(3) during the existence of a bargaining
deadlock to which an incumbent or The legal basis of check-off is found in
certified bargaining agent is a party and statutes or in contracts.
which had been submitted to conciliation
or arbitration or had become the subject Article 222 (b) of the Labor Code prohibits
of a valid notice of strike or lockout. the payment of attorney’s fees only when it
is effected through forced contributions
Deadlock Bar Rule simply provides that a from the workers from their own funds as
petition for certification election can only distinguished from the union funds.
be entertained if there is no pending
bargaining deadlock submitted to Requisites before special assessment for
conciliation or arbitration or had become Union’s incidental expenses, attorney’s fees
the subject of a valid notice of strike or and representation expenses may be
lockout. considered valid.

The principal purpose is to ensure The amount of check-off to be deducted is


stability in the relationship of the workers uncertain where although not fixed, it is
determinable.
and the management.
No deductions may be taken from the
67. ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees workers who did not sign any check-off
Union Members vs. ABS-CBN authorization.
Broadcasting Corporation G.R. No.
106518. March 11, 1999 68. Associated Workers Union-PTGWO
check off was part of the CBA, 10% of the vs. NLRC G.R. Nos. 87266-69. July 30,
salary increases & signing bonuses will be 1990
taken from supervisors to cover union’s
incidental expenses, including atty’s fees. Individual respondents didn’t disaffiliated
during the freedom period and they failed
Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; to muster the necessary majority in order
Statutory Construction; Pleadings and to justify disaffiliation.
Practice; Section 8, Rule VIII, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate If the promise cannot be binding upon the
from the mother union to form a local or parties if it is not written in the CBA
independent union only during the 60day
freedom period immediately preceding the Grievance machinery is mandatory in the
expiration of the CBA. CBA.

VII. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 Collective Bargaining Agreements;


Minutes; If there was indeed a promise or
69. University of the Immaculate undertaking on the part of the employer to
Concepcion, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor obligate itself to grant an automatic
and Employment G.R. No. 146291. across-the-board wage increase, the union
January 23, 2002 should have requested or demanded that
such “promise or undertaking” be
union filed a strike alleging ULP and incorporated in the CBA; A union may not
deadlock in the CBA. Subsequently, there validly claim that a proposal embodied in
was an agreement. Union rejected the the Minutes of the negotiation forms part
draft made by petitioner regarding the of the CBA that it finally entered into with
employees of the accounting dept. 2nd and the employer.
3rd strikes were filed. Sec of Labor A CBA is not an ordinary contract but one
directed the parties to execute a CBA. CA impressed with public interest; Only
stated that there was still no CBA because provisions embodied in the CBA should be
there was no meeting of the minds so interpreted and complied with—where
reached by the parties. a proposal raised by a contracting party
does not find print in the CBA, it is not a
part thereof and the proponent has no
A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) claim whatsoever to its implementation.
refers to the negotiated contract between The Minutes reflects the proceedings and
a legitimate labor organization and the discussions undertaken in the process of
employer concerning wages, hours of bargaining for worker benefits in the same
work and all other terms and conditions way that the minutes of court proceedings
of employment in a bargaining unit, show what transpired therein; If an
including mandatory provisions for employer promised something in the
grievances and arbitration machineries. negotiations, such promise could only be
As in all other contracts, there must be demandable in law if incorporated in the
clear indications that the parties reached CBA.
a meeting of the minds. Where a proposal was never embodied in
the CBA, the promise has remained just
70. Samahang Manggagawa sa Top that, a promise, the implementation of
Form Manufacturing United Workers of which cannot be validly demanded under
the Philippines (SWTFM-UWP) vs. NLRC the law.
G.R. No. 113856. September 7, 1998 With the execution of a CBA, bad faith
bargaining can no longer be imputed upon
Union wanted that any future wage any of the parties thereto.
increase given by govt shall be Bad faith cannot be inferred from a party’s
implemented as across the board/non insistence on the inclusion of a particular
conditional. Company said that they will substantive provision unless it concerns
look into it. There were subsequent wage trivial matters or is obviously intolerable.
orders. Union requested its
implementation. Company refused and 71. Kiok Loy vs. NLRC
No. L-54334.
applied the increase purportedly in order January 22, 1986
to avoid wage distortion.
Union furnished the company with two Contract Bar Rule; Repudiation made by
copies of its proposed CBA and requested some of the workers of the alleged
the latter for counter proposals. Company negotiation and ratification of the CBA is a
ignored and unacted. There was ULP for ground to annul the same.
refusal to bargain.
73. San Miguel Corporation Employees
Preconditions for setting in motion Union-PTGWO vs. Confesor G.R. No.
mechanics of collective bargaining.— 111262. September 19, 1996
While it is a mutual obligation of the
parties to bargain, the employer, ALU was the SEBA of the company.
however, is not under any legal duty to Subsequently, it was found out that it
initiate contract negotiation. The doesn’t have the majority required by the
mechanics of collective bargaining is set law in order to be the exclusive
in motion only when the following bargaining representative. CBA was
jurisdictional preconditions are present, defective.
namely,
(1) possession of the status of majority Legislators inclined to have the effectivity
representation of the employees’ of the CBA for three (3) years insofar as the
representative in accordance with any of economic as well as non-economic
the means of selection or designation provisions are concerned
provided for by the Labor Code; The employees sought to be represented by
(2) proof of majority representation; and the collective bargaining agent must have
(3) a demand to bargain under Article substantial mutual interests in terms of
251, par. (a) of the New Labor Code . . . . employment and working conditions as
all of which preconditions are evinced by the type of work they
undisputedly present in the instant case. performed.
Company’s refusal to make counter- It would then be best to have separate
proposal to the union’s proposed collective bargaining units for the different
bargaining agreement, an indication of its companies where the employees can
bad faith bargain separately according to their
needs and according to their own working
72. Associated Labor Union (ALU) vs. conditions.
Ferrer-Calleja G.R. No. 77282. May 5,
1989 74. Divine Word University of Tacloban
vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment
SMC undergo reconstruction and became G.R. No. 91915. September 11, 1992
2 distinct corporations. Petitioner insisted
that the CBA will only be effective upon Divine world withdrew the proposals of
the remaining years (2). Court ruled that the SEBA and avoided having
it shall last for 3 years. negotiations. The proposal became the
CBA for failure to bargain in good faith
SAME MECHANICS AS Bargaining Representatives; Certification
MENTIONED IN CASE 71. election; Role of employer.—xxx
Failure to properly determine with legal [Petitioner’s undue interest in the
certainty whether the union enjoyed resolution of the DWU-IFEU’s motion for
majority representation may be a ground intervention becomes significant since a
to nullify the certification. certification election is the sole concern of
Failure to post the Collective Bargaining employees except where the employer
Agreement in at least 2 conspicuous places itself has to file a petition for certification
in the establishment is an additional election. But once an employer has filed
infirmity. said petition, as the petitioner did in this
case, its active role ceases and it becomes Union made a proposal to modify
a mere bystander. Any uncalled-for the retirement plan in their CBA. Nestle
concern on the part of the employer may countered that it is still competitive w/
give rise to the suspicion that it is batting other industries and since it is not
for a company union. contributory it cant be negotiated in the
Bargaining deadlock presupposes CBA.
reasonable effort at good faith bargaining.
Court agrees with the NLRC’s
75. Standard Chartered Bank finding that the Retirement Plan was a
Employees Union (NUBE) vs. Confesor collective bargaining issue right from the
G.R. No. 114974. June 16, 2004 start.

The bank was being accused of ULP for Fact that the retirement plan is
surface bargaining. The bank bargained in non-contributory does not make it a non-
good faith since it had counter proposals issue in the CBA negotiations.
everytime the union will file its proposals.
Petitioner’s contention that
Labor Union; Interference, restraints or employees have no vested or demandable
coercion of employees by the employer in right to a non-contributory retirement
the exercise of their right to self- plan has no merit for employees do have a
organization or the right to form vested and demandable right over
association considered unfair labor existing benefits voluntarily granted to
practice; In order to show that the them by their employer. The latter may
employer committed ULP under the Labor not unilaterally withdraw, eliminate or
Code, substantial evidence is required to diminish such benefits.
support such claim.
Surface bargaining is defined as “going 77. Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz
through the motions of negotiating” GR. No. L-30241 (1072)
without any legal intent to reach an
agreement. The resolution of surface ALU was the seba. company agreed to a
bargaining allegations never presents an profit sharing bonus to its employees.
easy issue. The determination of whether Members of MWU was not given their
a party has engaged in unlawful surface bonus because ALU advised the company
bargaining is usually a difficult one not to unless ordered by court.
because it involves, at bottom, a question
of the intent of the party in question, and Industrial Peace Act; Collective bargaining
usually such intent can only be inferred agreement; Effect of.—The terms and
from the totality of the challenged party’s conditions of a collective bargaining
conduct both at and away from the contract constitute the law between the
bargaining table. It involves the question parties. Those who are entitled to its
of whether an employer’s conduct benefits can invoke its provisions. In the
demonstrates an unwillingness to bargain event that an obligation therein imposed
in good faith or is merely hard bargaining. is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the
The duty to bargain “does not compel right to go to court for redress.
either party to agree to a proposal or
require the making of a concession.” Collective bargaining agreement
benefits extend even to non-union
76. Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC members.
G.R. No. 91231. February 4, 1991
Enforcement of collective 80. Malayang Samahan ng mga
bargaining agreement cognizable by Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield vs.
ordinary courts. Ramos G.R. No. 113907. February 28,
2000
78. Juat vs. Court of Industrial Relations
No. L-20764. November 29, 1965 federation advised company of expulsion
of the union officers and demanded they
The closed-shop proviso' of a collective be terminated from employment. The
bargaining agreement entered into twin requirement was not observed by
between an employer and a duly the company.
authorized Iabor union is- applicable not
only to the employees or laborers that are Although union security clauses
employed after the collective bargaining embodied in the collective bargaining
agreement had been entered into but also agreement may be validly enforced and
to old employees who are not members of dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise
any labor union at the time the said be valid, this does not erode the
collective bargaining agreement was fundamental requirement of due process.
entered into.
Disaffiliations; Freedom of
In other words, if an employee or Association; A local union has the right to
laborer is already a member of labor disaffiliate from its mother union or
union different from the contracting labor declare its autonomy, and such
unions said employee or worker cannot disaffiliation cannot be considered
be obliged to become a member of that disloyalty; In the absence of specific
union as a condition for his continued provisions in the federation’s constitution
employment, Upon the other hand, if said prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration
employee or worker is a non-member of of autonomy of a local union, a local union
any labor union, he can be compelled to may dissociate from its parent union.
join the contracting labor union, and his
refusal to do so would constitute a 81. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
justifiable basis for dismissal. Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP
vs. National Labor Relations
Commission
79. Ferrer vs. National Labor Relations G.R. No. 102636. September 10, 1993
Commission
G.R. No. 100898. July 5, 1993 Wages; The issue of whether or not
a wage distortion exists as a consequence
Petitioners move to stage a strike of the grant of a wage increase to certain
based on economic demands, they were employees is a question of fact the
expelled by SAMAHAN. Subsequently they determination of which is the statutory
were dismissed from employment. Twin function of the NLRC.
requirements of notice and hearing must
be met in employment termination cases. In mandating an adjustment, the
law did not require that there be an
A CBA provision for a closed shop is elimination or total abrogation of
a valid form of union security and it is not quantitative wage or salary differences, a
a restriction on the right or freedom of severe contraction thereof is enough.
association guaranteed by the
Constitution. The Solicitor General has correctly
emphasized that the intention of the
parties, whether the benefits under a
collective bargaining agreement should be assumes all the personal undertakings —
equated with those granted by law or not like the no-strike stipulation here — in
unless there are compelling reasons the collective bargaining agreement made
otherwise must prevail and be given effect. by the deposed union.

82. E. Razon vs. Secretary of Labor


G.R. No. 85867. May 13, 1993

marina acquired all workers of the 2


arrastre services companies. Employees 84. Sanyo Philippine Workers Union-
not acquired wanted for Marina to be PSSLU vs. Cañizares
liable for their separation pay as stated in G.R. No. 101619. July 8, 1992
their CBA with their former employers.
Members of the union covered by
Collective Bargaining Agreements CBA must retain their membership in
unenforceable against persons not parties good standing as condition to continued
thereto. employment. Sanyo was notified that ff
members were expelled from the union
83. Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI because of anti union acts etc and
Employees recommended the dismissal of such to
G.R. No. L-24711 April 30, 1968 Sanyo.

BBWU was the seba of Benguet, it has a Collective Bargaining


no strike, no lockout policy in their CBA. Agreement; Dismissal; Enforcement of the
After 3 years, CE was conducted wherein union security clause in the CBA is
BCI won. A strike was made by the authorized by law provided that
employees due to ULP. Benguet contends enforcement should not be characterized
that the union violated the CBA for the by arbitrariness and always with due
strike. court held that they were not party process.
to the contract made by Benguet & BBWU
hence there was no breach of contract. 85. Vivero vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 138938. October 24, 2000
"Substitutionary" doctrine only provides
that the employees cannot revoke the vivero was dismissed for a very poor
validly executed collective bargaining performance and conduct in his job.
contract with their employer by the Grievance proceedings were conducted
simple expedient of changing their but the parties failed to settle.
bargaining agent. And it is in the light of
this that the phrase "said new agent Absent an express stipulation in the CBA,
would have to respect said contract" must the phrase “all disputes” should be
be understood. It only means that the construed as limited to the areas of conflict
employees, thru their new bargaining traditionally within the jurisdiction of
agent, cannot renege on their collective Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes
bargaining contract, except of course to relating to contract-interpretation,
negotiate with management for the contract-implementation, or interpretation
shortening thereof. or enforcement of company personnel
policies—illegal termination disputes in
The "substitutionary" doctrine, the absence of an express CBA provision, do
therefore, cannot be invoked to support not fall within any of these categories, and
the contention that a newly certified are within the exclusive original
collective bargaining agent automatically
jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by express the resolution of their dispute through
provision of law. arbitration by a third party.”

The use of the word “may” shows Regularization; While the


the intention of the parties to reserve the arbitrator is expected to decide only those
right to submit the illegal termination questions expressly delineated by the
dispute to the jurisdiction of the Labor submission agreement, he can assume that
Arbiter, rather than to a Voluntary he has the necessary power to make a final
Arbitrator- settlement since arbitration is the final
resort for the adjudication of disputes;
When the parties have validly Even if the submission agreement
agreed on a procedure for resolving mentioned only the determination of the
grievances and to submit a dispute to date of regularization, law and
voluntary arbitration then that procedure jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator
should be strictly observed. enough leeway of authority as well as
adequate prerogative to accomplish the
Grievance Procedure; Where under reason for which the law on voluntary
the CBA, both Union and the employer are arbitration was created—speedy labor
responsible for selecting an impartial justice—and to settle, once and for all, the
arbitrator or for convening an arbitration ultimate question of whether the
committee, yet neither made a move employees are entitled to higher benefits.
towards this end, the employee should not
be deprived of his legitimate recourse 87. Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs.
because of the refusal of both Union and Magsalin
the employer to follow the grievance G.R. No. 90426. December 15, 1989
procedure.
CBA granted a performance bonus,
86. Ludo & Luym Corporation vs. amount determined by company’s return
Saornido of capital investment. Company called a
G.R. No. 140960. January 20, 2003 meeting explaining that it is unable to
grant the bonus because the performance
Union entered a CBA w/ LUDO of the workers did not justify such grant.
providing benefits to its employees Arbitrator held that the bonus in the CBA
depending on the length of service was mandatory.
rendered. Union requested to include in
its members’ period the time during Voluntary
which they rendered arrastre services. Arbitration; Certiorari; The award of a
Voluntary Arbitrator is final and executory
The jurisdiction of the Labor after ten calendar days from receipt of the
Arbiter and the Voluntary or Panel of award by the parties; When certiorari will
Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases lie against an award of a voluntary
enumerated in the Labor Code, Articles arbitrator; Remedies.
217, 261 and 262, can possibly include
money claims in one form or another; Performance Bonus; The voluntary
Compulsory arbitration has been defined arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and
both as “the process of settlement of labor authority to interpret the agreement, to
disputes by a government agency which arbitrate and to determine the scope of his
has the authority to investigate and to own authority.
make an award which is binding on all the
parties, and as a mode of arbitration 88. Luzon Development Bank vs.
where the parties are compelled to accept Association of Luzon Development Bank
Employees G.R. No. 120319. October 6, Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. No. L-
1995 25291. January 30, 1971

In labor law context, arbitration is company through their president sent a


the reference of a labor dispute to an letter to each strikers containing a
impartial third person for determination promise of comfortability benefits and
on the basis of evidence and arguments failure to report to work will be subject to
presented by such parties who have replacement.
bound themselves to accept the decision
of the arbitrator as final and binding. Notifying absent employees individually
during strike by employer.
Arbitration may be classified, on
the basis of the obligation on which it is When employer negotiates or
based, as either compulsory or voluntary. attempts to negotiate with his employees
individually in connection with changes in
Compulsory arbitration is a system the agreement is unfair labor practice.
whereby the parties to a dispute are
compelled by the government to forego When act of company president in
their right to strike and are compelled to writing letters to strikers urging them to
accept the resolution of their dispute return to work is an interference with the
through arbitration by a third party. The right to collective bargaining; Individual
essence of arbitration remains since a solicitation is also interference.
resolution of a dispute is arrived at by
resort to a disinterested third party When strike-breaking or union-
whose decision is final and binding on the busting is unfair labor practice.
parties, but in compulsory arbitration,
such a third party is normally appointed Employer’s interference; Test of
by the government. whether an employer has interfered with
and coerced em-ployees.
Under voluntary arbitration, on
the other hand, referral of a dispute by 90. Phil. Steam Navigation Co. vs. Phil.
the parties is made, pursuant to a Marine Officers Guild
voluntary arbitration clause in their Nos. L-20667 & L-20669. October 29,
collective agreement, to an impartial third 1965
person for a final and binding resolution.

Collective Bargaining PMOG sent company demands for a CBA


Agreements; In the Philippine context, the but was countered that they shall prove
parties to a Collective Bargaining its representation of a majority of its
Agreement are required to include therein employees before considering its
provisions for a machinery for the demands. Subsequently, CBA was entered
resolution of grievances arising from the into by the company and another union
interpretation or implementation of the (CSA)
CBA or company personnel policies.
Right of employer to interrogate its
employees as to their union affiliation.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
91. Judric Canning Corporation vs.
89. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Inciong
Employees Association-NATU vs. The No. L-51494. August 19, 1982
They alleged that they were not farms to negotiate with him, not with
allowed to report to work due to their ALU.
union activities such as soliciting
membership in a union yet to be Balmar's refusal to bargain collectively
organized. Judric said that it was the with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor
employees who did not report to work. practice.

Abandonment of work by employees 94. Alhambra Industries, Inc. vs. Court


inconsistent with their immediate filing of of Industrial Relations
a complaint for illegal dismissal; Dismissal No. L-25984. October 30, 1970
of employees not for abandonment from
work but due to union activities. union asked the company to negotiate w
respect to the drivers and helpers being
Dismissal of employees for soliciting excluded from the CBA. Petitioner refused
signatures to form a union within the contending that they were employees of
company constitutes unfair labor another company.
practice; Interference with formation of a
labor union violative of employees’ right to Employer’s refusal to bargain collectively
self-organization. constitutes an unfair labor practice.

92. Wise and Co., Inc. vs. Wise & Co., Inc. 95. Salanga vs. Court of Industrial
Employees Union Relations
G.R. No. 87672. October 13, 1989 No. L-22456. September 27, 1967

A profit sharing scheme was made petitioner resigned from the union, but he
for the managers and supervisors and latter learned that there was a closed
also to all other rank and file employees shop proviso. He tried to take back his
no covered by the CBA. resignation but the union still considered
him resigned from being a member and
There can be no discrimination where the told the company to terminate him.
employees concerned are not similarly
situated. When company was not guilty of unfair
labor practice.
Rule that labor law does not
authorize the substitution of judgment of Right of employee dismissed from
the employer in the conduct of its business, service due to unfair labor practice.
established.
96.United Restauror's Employees &
Grant by petitioner of profit sharing Labor Union vs. Torres
benefits to the employees outside the No. L-24993. December 18, 1968
bargaining unit falls under the ambit of its
managerial prerogative. Delta denied the request of union to conduct
picketing activities because it may be held liable
93. Balmar Farms, Inc. vs. NLRC for any incident. No er-ee between the parties.
G.R. No. 73504. October 15, 1991 Union lost in the CE that is why it may no longer
demand a CBA.
ALU was the seba. President of the
employees of Balmar sent a letter to the Collective bargaining unit; In whom
company stating their disregarding ALU vested; Consent election.
as their representatives and asked Balmar
Where petition for certiorari to
annul writ of preliminary injunction has
become moot and academic because
petitioner lost in a consent election and is
no longer a proper collective bargaining
unit.

97. Manila Mandarin Employees Union


vs. NLRC
No. L-76989. September 29,1987

Melba was expelled by the union


for disloyalty to it and failing to maintain
a membership in good standing. She was
also terminated from work.

Right of union to invoke provision


must be in good faith.

A closed-shop agreement is an
agreement whereby an employer binds
himself to hire only members of the
contracting union who must continue to
remain members in good standing to keep
their jobs. It is "the most prized
achievement of unionism." It adds
membership and compulsory dues. By
holding out to loyal members a promise
of employment in the closed-shop, it
welds group solidarity.
A closed-shop is a valid form of
union security.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen