BOOK Vv LABOR RELATIONS (Atty. Ma. Lourdes A. Sales ) [Articles 218 — 292, Labor Code, as amended by R. A. No. 9347 (took effect 8/27/2006), R. A. No. 9481 (took effect 6/14/2007) and R. A. No. 10396 (approved on 3/14/2013), and renumbered under Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015; Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor Code ~ Dept. Order No. 40 - 03, Series of 2003 (issued on 2/17/2003), as amended by Dept. Order No. 40 - B - 03, Series of 2004 (issued on 2/16/2004), Dept. Order No. 40 - F - 03, Series of 2008 (issued on 10/30/2008), Dept. Order No. 40 - G - 03, Series of 2010 (issued on 3/29/2010), Dept. Order No. 40 - H - 13, Series of 2013 (issued on 10/21/2013) and Dept. Order No. 40 - I~ 15, Series of 2015 (issued on 9/7/2015)] A. National Labor Relations Commission 1. Composition, Appointment and Qualifications of Labor Arbiters and Commissioners ~ Articles 220 - 223, LC as amended by R. A. No. 9347 2. Proceedings before Labor Arbiters — Rule V, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure 3. Proceedings before the Commission — Rule VII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure B. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbit 1. Venue, Assignment and Disposition of cases — Rule IV, NLRC Rules of Procedure 2. Endorsement or referral of cases to Labor Arbiters after the mandatory coneiliation- mediation conducted by Desk Officers under the DOLE Single Entry Assistance Desk Office of DOLE or the NLRC Single Entry Approach ~ Art. 234, LC as amended by R.A. No. 10396 3. Cases subject to original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters ~ Articles 124, 224, 233, LC; Sec. 10, R. A. No. 8042, as amended by R. A. No. 10022 (lapsed into law on 3/8/2010) ‘a, “reasonable causal connection rule” — If there is a reasonable connection between the claim presented and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of labor courts. = Kawachi v. Del Quero, March 27, 2007 b. Under the 1987 Constitution [Art. IX(B), Sec. 2(1), the NLRC has no jurisdiction over a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by an employee of a government- owned or controlled corporation with original charter. - Bliss Development Corp. v. NLRC, January 25, 1989 ¢. Employees of a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter like the LRTA is covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. - Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr., March 24, 20067Jurisdiction over disputes involving government employees is vested with the Public ‘Sector Labor ~ Management Council pursuant to Exec. Order No. 180 (une 1, 1980) SSS Employces Association v. Court of Appeals, July 28, 1989 175 SCRA 686 ‘The National Parks Development Committee is a government agency whose ‘employees are covered by the civil service rules... + Samahang Manggagawa ng Rizal Park v. NLRC, June 21, 1991 198 SCRA 48(/ The Boy Scout of the Philippines may be regarded as both a government-controlled corporation with an original charter and as an instrumentality of the government within the meaning of Art. [X(), Sec. 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution - BSP v. NLRC, April 22, 1991 196 SCRA 176 (See Exec. Order No. 495, Series of 1991 and Exec. Order No. $09 issued on March 4, 1992) ‘The NLRC has no jurisdiction over employees of an international agency like the SEAFDEC or any of its departments, - SEAFDEC - AQD v. NLRC, February 14, 1992 -prvate reading Notwithstanding the original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters over money claims exceeding P5,000.00, the Secretary of Labor or his representative, i.e., Regional Director, shall have the power to hear and decide money claims exceeding P5,000.00 where the employment relationship still exists and the employer does not contest or raise any issue relative to the inspection results, + Maternity Children’s Hospital v. Sec. of Labor, June 30, 1989, en banc ma SCRA 632 mee: Ait 29 (asd) + AKL MA,LC - Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. v. NLRC, August 6, 1999 312 SCRA 22 = People’s Broadcasting Services, Inc. v. NLRC, March 6, 2012, en bane (see also prior decision in same case dated May 8, 2009) [READ Articles 128(a,b) and 129, LC re: jurisdiction of Sec. of Labor/Regional Director over money claims) The provisions of the Labor Code which govern the dismissal of employees are comprehensive enough to include religious corporations. Where the case does not involve an ecclesiastical or purely religious affair, the Labor Arbiter can take cognizance of the case. + Austria v. NLRC, August 16, 1999 312 SCRA 4107 Claims of workers to recover damages agreed upon in the contract of employment as redress for breach of contract belongs to the jurisdiction of the regular courts, while claims for damages arising from acts attributed to the employer while still an employee are in connection with employer-employee relationship and therefore under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. = Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp. v. Villarama, Jr., 238 SCRA 267 = Encamacion v. Dynasty Amusement Center Corp. 213 SCRA 248 The jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission over cases enumerated in Section 5 of P. D. No. 902-A (Revised Securities Act),which includedcontroversies in the election and appointment of directors, trustees, officers, of ‘managers of corporations, partnerships of associations and petition to be declared in a state of suspension of payments for corporate rehabilitation, has been transferred to the Regional Inal Courts pursuant to R. A. No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) which was signed into law on July 19, 2000, ~ Nacpil v. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. March 21, 2002 379 SCRA 653 SSS ‘Under Administrative Matter No. 00-#-10-SC on the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation approved by the Supreme Court on December 2, 2008 and became effective on January 16. 2009, the issuance of a Stay Order in corporate rehabilitation only suspends the implementation of a writ of execution against the judgment debtor and does not affect the right to commence actions or proceedings insofar as it is necessary to preserve a claim against the debtor. + OLD Jurisprudential ruling: Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, April 14, 1999 305 SCRA 721 Where there was already an actual dismissal of the employee, jurisdiction over the case is lodged with the Labor Arbiter and not the voluntary arbitrator. Only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. = Atlas Farms, Ine. v. NLRC November 18. 2002 A reading of Article 217 (now 224) in conjunction with Article 262 (now 275) shows that termination disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter unless the union and the company agree that termination disputes should be submitted to voluntary arbitration = Landtex Industries v. Court of Appeals August 9, 2007 . The POEA Rules only provide sanctions which the POEA can impose on erring agencies. It does not provide for damages and money claims recoverable by aggrieved employees because it is not the POEA but the NLRC which has jurisdiction ‘over such matters. = Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. July 10, 2007 . Jurisdiction by estoppel — a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction, + Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29 |. The special civil action of certiorari is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. A special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of the SC and the Court of Appeals. Consequently, all petitions for certiorari should be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. + St Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, en banc September 16, 1998C. NLRC proceedings and amicable settlement of labor disputes -- Article 227, LC 1. The SC construed Article 221(now 227), LC so as to allow the NLRC or a Labor Arbiter to decide a case on the basis of position papers and other documents submitted without resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in the regular courts. - Manila Doctors Hospital v. NLRC, February 28, 1985 135 SCRA 262 2. While it is true that affidavits may be regarded as infirm evidence before the regular courts unless the affiants are presented on the stand, such affidavits by themselves are acceptable in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. + Great Pacific Life Empioyees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp.303 SCRA 113 (NOTE: under Rule V, Section 12(c) of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the submission of position papers by the parties shall be accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses which shall take the place of their direct testimony) 3. Petition for relief and/or motion for reconsideration even if seasonably filed based on a valid ground is unavailing as a remedy since the NLRC Rules themselves have provided a specific procedure to be followed. + Cayena v. NLRC 194 SCRA 134 (Under Rule V, Section 5 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, petition for relief from judgment and motion for reconsideration are prohibited pleadings before the Labor Arbiter) 4. The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. = Casimiro v. Stern Real Estate, Inc. March 10,2006 484 SCRA 463 5. Pleadings shall be construed liberally so as to render substantial justice to the parties and to determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the case. Hence, the absence of a verification is not jurisdictional but only a format defect. - Linton Commercial Co., Inc, v. Hellera October 10,2007 535 SCRA 434 6. The liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: 1) a party should adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence; and 2) a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. - Loon v. Power Master, Inc. December 11, 2013 7. Compromise Agreement a. General Rule: waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. Exception: where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily with full understanding of what he was doing and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. = Periquetv.NLRC June 22, 1990 186 SCRA 724m . Once an employee resi, 'gns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the employer, Excupr wt neo fyi te ue : nt n -xecution of the quitclaim is put into issue or when it is established that there is an unwritten agreement between the employer and the employee entitling the latter to other remuneration or benefits upon his resignation. Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC 292 SCRA 469° Requisites for a valid quitclaim: 1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties, 2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and veasonable, and 3) that the contract is not contrary to law, he is public order , public Policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Soriano, Jr. v. NLRC April 23, 2007 521 SCRA 526 . In law, a compromise agreement, once approved, has the effect of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent, forgery, misrepresentation and coercion. Corista-Domingo v. NLRC October i7, 2006 504 SCRA 659 A judgment approving a compromise agreement cannot have the effect of res judicata upon non-signatories since the requirement of identity of parties is not satisfied. A judgment upon a compromise agreement has the force and effect of any other judgment, and, conclusive only upon parties thereto and their privies, hence, not binding on third persons who are not parties to it. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. NURC September 5,2006 501 SCRA 75 A compromise agreement duly entered into in accordance with Section 8, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure shall be final and binding upon the parties and shall have the force and effect of a judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter. Under Dept. Order No. 147-15, Series of 2015, Rule I-A, Section 9, any settlement agreement reached by the parties before the Desk Officer (conducting conciliation-mediation at the Single Entry Assistance Desk Office of DOLE or at the Single Entry Approach program of the NLRC pursuant to R. A. No. 10396) shall be final and binding. NOTE: The NLRC Rules of Procedure does not require that compromise agreements be signed in the presence of the Labor Arbiter, but must be reduced in writing, signed by the parties and their counsel or authorized representative, and approved by the Labor Arbiter (Rule V, Section 8-b,c), while settlement before any Desk Officer shall be reduced in writing and signed in the presence of the Desk Officer who shall attest the agreement to be the true and voluntary act of the parties (Dept. Order No. 147-15, Series of 2015, Rule I-A, Section 8) Eurotech Hair Systems, Inc. v.Go August 31, 2006.f h. In case of non-compliance by the employer or employee, the terms of the settlement agreement (i.c., entered into before the Desk Officer) may be enforced by requesting the Desk Officer to refer the same to the proper Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for enforcement of the agreement, which shall be docketed as an arbitration case for enforcement of the settlement agreement (Dept. Order No. 147-15, Series of 2015, Rule I-A, Section 11) D. Appearance of non-lawyers before the NLRC [Article 228(a), LC; NLRC Rules of Procedure, Rule HL, Section 6(b)], and requisites for a valid special assessment [Article 228(b), 1 ad Article 250(n, 0)}: 1. The requisites for a valid special assessment foe union's expenses, attomey’s fees and representation expenses are: 1) authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the members at the general membership meeting duly called for the purpose; 2) secretary's record of the minutes of the meeting; and 3) individual written authorization for check-off duly signed by the employee concemed. = ABS-CBN Supervisor's Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. March 11,1999 304 SCRA 489: E. Appeal to the Commission of the Labor Arbiter’s decision — Article 229, LC; Rule Vi of NLRC Rules of Procedure 1. ‘The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the Labor Arbiter’s decision final and executory. + Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC November 15, 2005 XCEPTION: late filing of appeal allowed due to justifiable reasons = Chronicle Securities Corp. v. NLRC. November 25, 2004 (one day late) = Republic Cement Corp. v. NLRC. August 24, 2009 (few days before last day for filing the appeal) - Siguenza v, Court of Appeals, July 16, 1085 (13 days late) - Republic v. Court of Appeals, May 31, 1978 (6 days late) 2. Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal. = Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. April 22, 2003 3. The Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer has to either re-admit the employee or reinstate him in the payroll, and that failure to exercise the alternative options of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement, the employer must pay the employee's wages pending appeal unlessthe enforcement of the reinstatemel is wil > t + Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., en bane January 20, 2009 _ (NOTE: superseded the ruling in Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007, which granted the employer the right to require the dismissed employee placed on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries he received while the case was pending appeal) |. The reinstatement decreed by the Voluntary Arbitrator is immediately executory upon receipt of the award or decision by the parties, Said reinstatement order should have the same authority, force and effect as that of the reinstatement order by the Labor Arbiter not only to encourage parties to settle their disputes through voluntary arbitration, but also, and more importantly, to to enforce the constitutional mandate to protect labor, to provide security of tenure, and to enhance social justice. - Baronda v. Court of Appeals October 14, 2015 5. The proper remedy from an order or decision of a voluntary arbitrator is to appeal to the Court of Appeals by a petition for review under Rule 43, Section | of the Rules of Court. The period of appeal is within 10 days from receipt of the order or decision pursuant to Article 262-A (now Art. 276) of the Labor Code. = Baronda v. Court of Appeals, supra The higher court which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal was. the Court of Appeals (CA) in its decision promulgated on August 27, 2003 since it was the CA that declared the legality of complainants’ dismissal, and not the NLRC Commission which in its decision dated January 30, 2002 affirmed the illegality of the dismissal but modified the relief by granting separation pay in licu of the LA's order of reinstatement plus backwages. Thus, the period for computing reinstatement wages pending appeal should end on August 27, 2003. = Wenphil Corp. v. Abing April 7, 2014 For purposes of determining the amount of appeal bond, the award for damages and attorney's fees are excluded. - Femandezv. NLRC January 28, 1998 (See Rule VI, Section 6, first par., NLRC Rules of Procedure) 8. A real property bond which sufficiently protects the interests of the parties should they finally prevail is acceptable as an appeal bond. - UERM-Memorial Medical Center v. NLRC March 3, 1997 269 SCRA 70 9. A Deed of Assignment of a Bank Deposit as cash bond for the monetary award constitutes substantial compliance with the bond requirement. ~ People’s Broadcasting Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor May 8, 2009 10. An order of reinstatement is an ancillary relief granted to a dismissed employee to cushion him and his family from the impact of economic dislocation or abrupt loss of fal ~earnings. If the employce chooses not to report for work pei r case on appeal, he forgoes such relief and he : not paid ia i rie + Jardine Davies, Inc. v. NLRC August 31, 1993 225 SCRA 787 11. The failure to pay the appeal docketing fec is not fatal to the appeal because technical rules of procedure are not binding in any proceedings before the NLRC and Art. 277- d (now 292-d), LC provides that no docket fee shall be assessed in labor standards dispute. - Abav. NLRC July 28,1999 311 SCRA 424 12. Guidelines on the filing and acceptance of motions to reduce appeal bond in relation to Rule VI, Section 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. = McBurie v. Ganzon, G. R. No. 186984-85 October 17, 2013, en banc F. Motion for Reconsideration before the Commission - Rule VII, Section 15 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure 1. It is a well-established rule that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari. The rationale for this rule is to afford the NILRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had. - Philippine National Bank v. Arcobillas August 7, 2013 (NOTE: this case cites the exceptions when the filing of a petition for certiorari is proper even without a MR filed) Rule VIL, Section 14 (now Section 15) of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that the decisions, resolutions or orders of the Commission shall become final and executor after 10 calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties (Note: same provision as in Article 229, par. 6 of the Labor Code), and entry of judgment shall be made upon the expiration of the said period; however, it was ruled in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (9/16/1998) that judicial review of decisions of the NLRC may be sought via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and under Section 2 thereof, petitioners are allowed 60 days from notice of the assailed order or resolution within which to file said petition. Where a petition for certiorari is filed after the 10-day period under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure but within the 60-day period under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA can grant the petition and modify, nullify and reverse a decision or resolution of the NLRC. - Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. Legaspi June 10, 2013 3. Contrary evidence submitted for the first time in a motion for reconsideration can be considered and admitted by the NLRC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. - The New Valley Times Press v. NURC July 15, 1992 nvG. Execution of decisions - Article 230, LC; Rule XI, Section 2 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure — execution by motion or by independent action 1. A Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement is immediately executory even pending appeal and does not require a writ of execution. The necessity for a writ of execution applies only to final and executory decisions. = = Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC, en bane October 16, 1997 (NOTE: under Rule XI, Section 12 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the ILA shall immediately issue a writ of execution pending appeal in case its decision includes an order of reinstatement and where the employer 1) disobeys the directive under Rule V, Section 19, second paragraph of the NLRC Rules of Procedure directing the employer to submit a report of compliance within 10 calendar days from receipt of the 1.A’s decision, or 2) refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee. HH. Bureau of Labor Relations — Article 232, LC 1. Appellate authority over decisions of the Regional Director involving examinations of union accounts is expressly conferred on the BLR under the Rules of Procedure on Mediation-Arbitration. - Barles v. Bitonio June 16, 1999 308 SCRA 288 (NOTE: See Dept. Order No. 40 ~ F - 03, Series of 2008, Rule XIII, Sections 3 and 14) 1. Mandatory Conciliation and Endorsement of Cases — Article 234, LC as amended by R. A. No. 10396 (issued on March 14, 2013) NOTE: R. A. No. 10396 mandates that all issues arising from labor and management shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation and that the Labor Arbiter or the appropriate DOLE agency or office that has jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed or referred cases by the duly authorized officer. J. Labor Organizations — Articles 240 — 249, LC as amended by R. A. No. 9481 (took effect June 14, 2007) 1, Registration of labor organizations — Rule III, Dept. Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 as amended by Dept. Order No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 2. Cancellation of registration of labor organizations — Rule XIV, Dept. Order No. 40-03 as amended by D. O. No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 3. In an election of union officers, only members of the union can vote while in a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote. - UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio November 16, 1999 318 SCRA 185 4. The power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union.~ + San Miguel Corp. Employees Union - PTGWO v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union - PDMP September 12, 2007 5 ee arama aa tly cel yt meee es n fall upon the latter being the principal, and not the federation which is a mere agent of the local union. - _~_ Pilipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. v. NLRC November 16, 1999. 318 SCRA 68 K. Right to Self-organization — Articles 253 — 257, LC as amended by R. A. No. 9481 1. Security guards may freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of the supervisory union, depending on their rank. - Manila Electric Co. v. Sec. of Labor May 20, 1991 197 SCRA 275 2. Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees while iegal secretaries fall under the category of confidential employees. Confidential employees are those who, by the very nature of their functions, assist and act in a confidential capacity to or have access to confidential matters of persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. - Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Corp. Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor February 13,1995 -241. SCRA 294 - Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor February 28, 1996 254 SCRA 182 3. While Art. 245(now 255) of the Labor Code singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join, assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly disqualified. = Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Sec. of Labor August 10, 1999 312 SCRA 104 L. Unfair Labor Practices — Articles 258 - 260, LC 1. ULP jis committed due to company’s refusal to make counter proposal which indicates bad faith and lack of a sincere desire to negotiate. - Kiok Loy v. NLRC January 22, 1986 141 SCRA 179 2. The mere fact that the proposal in question was not included in the CBA indicates that no contractual commitment was ever made by the respondent as no agreement had been arrived at by the parties. With the execution of the CBA, bad faith cannot be provision. - Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United Workers of the Philippines (SMTFM-UWP) v. NLRC September 7, 1998 295 SCRA 171 M. Bargaining Unit 1. Definition - Rule I, Sec. 1(d), D. O. No. 30-03, Series of 2003 2. Factors for determining the proper constituency of a bargaining unit - Belyca Corp. v. Ferrer-Calleja November 29, 1988 168 SCRA 192 N. Collective Bargaining 1. Definition - negotiations towards a collective agreement (Pampanga Bus Co. v. Pambusco Employees, 68 Phil. 541:Kiok Loy v. NLRC, 141 SCRA 179) 2. Procedure in collective bargaining — Art. 261,LCa. The procedure in collective bargaining prescribed i because of the basic interest of the state in Coan ihe hoes = General Milling Corp. v.Court of Appeals February 11,2004 3. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively — Arts. 263-264, LC 4. Kinds of collective bargaining: . b. Single enterprise bargaining — Rule XVI, sec. 3-4, D.O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 ¢. Multiemployer bargaining — Rule XVI, Sec. 5-6, D.O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 O. Exclusive Bargaining Representative — Art. 267, LC, 1" par. 1. Definition — Art. 219 (j), LC; Rule I, Sec. I(t), D. O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 2. Procedures for acquiring the status of an exclusive representative: a. Request for Sole And Exclusive Bargaining Agent Certification - Rule VII of D. O. No. 40-03 as amended by D. O. No. 40-I-15, Series of 2015 b. Certification Election/Consent Election — Rules VIII-IX of D. O. No. 40-03 as amended by D. ©. No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 and D. O. No. 40-1-15, Series of 2015; Definition — Rule I, Sec. 1(h), D. O. No. 49-03, Series of 2003 c. Run-Off Election — Rule X of D. O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 4. Re-Run Election — Rule I, Sec. 1 of D. O. No. 40-1-15, Series of 2015 (definition); Rule IX, Sec. 18 of D. O. No. 40-03 as amended by D. O. No. 40-I-15, S. of 2015 3. Petition for certification election in organized establishment — Art. 268, Lc 4. Petition for certification election in unorganized establishment — Art. 269,L 5. When employer may file petition for certification election — Art. 270, LC 6. Employer as bystander ~ Art. 271, LC 7, Workers’ participation in policy and decision-making ~ Art. 267, 2" par., LC - Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC — August 13, 1993 P. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 1. Definition — Rule I, Sec. 1G) of D. O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 2. Terms of a collective bargaining agreement — Art. 265, LC 3. Registration of CBA ~ Art. 237, LC; Rule XVII of D. 0. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 4. The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. - Mindanao Steel Corp. v. Minsteel Free Workers Organization March 4, 2004 5, Agreement between Pal and PALEA to suspend the CBA for 10 years and put in abeyance the limit on the representation period was upheld by the SC as a valid exercise of the freedom to contract. - Rivera v. Espiritu. January 23, 2002 6. Resolving conflicts on what should be the contents of a CBA are grounded largely on what is possible, fair and reasonable under the peculiar circumstances of each case. Caltex Refinery Employees Association(CREA) v. Brillantes September 16, 1997 279 SCRA 218Q. Strikes and Lockouts ~ Article 278, LC; Rule XXH of D, 1. Definition of terms - Art. 219 (1, 0, p, r, 5), LC a. The term “strike” comprises not only concerted work stoppayes, tnt ales, slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabuns Laue: plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities. - Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v, Sulpicio Lines, tne. March 25, 2004 2. Requisites for a valid strike or lockout -- Art. 278 (c, f), LC; Rule XX, See. 10, 2 par. of D. O. No. 40-03, Series of 2003 a. Such requirements as the filing of a strike, strike vote, efc. are mandatory in nature; effects of participation in an illegal strike by a union officer and ordinary worker/member. - Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. NAFILU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. March 25, 2004 b. Union officers who knowingly participated in an illegal strike could be dismissed but must be given the required notices before termination, = Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian February 24, 2004 c. No strike clause in the CBA only bars economic strikes but not strikes grounded on unfair labor practices; NCMB’s conversion of the notice of strike (NOS) into a preventive mediation case ha’ the effect of dismissing the NOS. - San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC June 10, 2003 3. An “innocent bystander” is one without any connection to either of the parties in the labor dispute, thus, is entitled to a writ of injunction from the civil courts to enjoin the labor strike. - MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals August 5, 1999 311 SCRA 764 4. Assumption of jurisdiction and certification to NLRC (Commission) of labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest - Art. 278 (g), LC, D. O. No, 40-G-03, Series of 2010 as amended by D. O. No. 40-H-13, Series of 2013 a. A retum to work order is immediately effective and executor, from the moment a worker defies a return to work order, he is deemed to have abandoned his job. - St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres June 29, 1992 210 SCRA 565 b. The Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction is grounded on a determination that the industry involved in the labor dispute is one indispensable to the national interest; a match factory is not an industry indispensable to the national interest. - Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Brillantes March 17, 1999 304 SCRA 747 5. Prohibited acts during a strike - Art. 279, LC - Association of Independent Unions in the Phils. V. NLRC March 25, 1999 305 SCRA 219 0..No, 40.95, Series uf tomy