Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
| Labor Relations-2A
2
| Labor Relations-2A
3
| Labor Relations-2A
4
| Labor Relations-2A
5
| Labor Relations-2A
6
| Labor Relations-2A
The Director adjudged that said teachers 2) To say that the Council is "limited to
are rank-and-file employees "qualified to (acting on) academic matters" is error, since
join unions and vote in certification academic decisions "are the most important
elections." According to her — decisions made in a University . . (being, as
A careful perusal of the it were) the heart, the core of the University
University Code . . shows as a workplace.
that the policy-making
powers of the Council are 3) Considering that the law regards as a
limited to academic matters, "high level" employee, one who performs
namely, prescribing courses either policy-determining, managerial, or
of study and rules of confidential functions, the Director erred in
discipline, fixing student applying only the "managerial functions"
admission and graduation test, ignoring the "policy-determining
requirements, recommending functions" test.
7
| Labor Relations-2A
8
| Labor Relations-2A
9
| Labor Relations-2A
10
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of
unfair labor practice.
RULING:
Yes. Employees who hold temporary
contracts of employment may not expect
renewal of appointment as a matter of right
since the decision is a management
prerogative. However, when the exercise of
this privilege is alleged to be the means by
which management hinders unionism or
11
| Labor Relations-2A
12
| Labor Relations-2A
13
| Labor Relations-2A
14
| Labor Relations-2A
15
| Labor Relations-2A
16
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE: WON the Respondent has legal In regular order, it is the federation or
personality? national union, already in possession of
legal personality, which initiates the creation
RULING: YES. of the local/chapter. It issues a charter
The Labor Code defines a “labor certificate indicating the creation or
organization” as – as any union or establishment of the local/chapter. It then
association of employees which exists in submits this charter certificate, along with
whole or in part for the purpose of collective the names of the local/chapters officers,
bargaining or of dealing with employers constitution and by-laws to the Regional
concerning terms and conditions of Office or Bureau. It is the submission of
employment; and a “legitimate labor these documents which vests legal
organization” as – any labor organization personality in the local/chapter, which is
17
| Labor Relations-2A
18
| Labor Relations-2A
that they were issued with grave abuse of shall immediately return to work and
discretion and excess of jurisdiction. the employer shall immediately
resume operations and readmit all
ISSUES: workers under the same terms and
1. W/N public respondent Labor Secretary conditions prevailing before the
committed grave abuse of discretion strike or lockout. The Secretary of
and exceeded her jurisdiction in Labor and Employment or the
declaring the subject layoffs instituted by Commission may seek the
Metrolab illegal. assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with
2. W/N Executive Secretaries must be this provisionas well as with such
included as part of the bargaining unit of orders as he may issue to enforce
rank and file employees? the same. . . . (Emphasis ours.)
That Metrolab's business is of national
RULING: interest is not disputed. Metrolab is one of
the leading manufacturers and suppliers of
1. No. This Court recognizes the exercise of medical and pharmaceutical products to the
management prerogatives and often country.
declines to interfere with the legitimate
business decisions of the employer. Metrolab's management prerogatives,
However, this privilege is not absolute but therefore, are not being unjustly curtailed
subject to limitations imposed by law. but duly balanced with and tempered by the
limitations set by law, taking into account its
The case at bench constitutes one of the special character and the particular
exceptions. The Secretary of Labor is circumstances in the case at bench.
expressly given the power under the Labor
Code to assume jurisdiction and resolve Metrolab and the Union were still in the
labor disputes involving industries process of resolving their CBA deadlock
indispensable to national interest. The when petitioner implemented the subject
disputed injunction is subsumed under this layoffs. As a result, motions and oppositions
special grant of authority. Art. 263 (g) of the were filed diverting the parties', attention,
Labor Code specifically provides that: delaying resolution of the bargaining
xxx xxx xxx deadlock and postponing the signing of their
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists new CBA, thereby aggravating the whole
a labor dispute causing or likely to conflict.
cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the We, likewise, find untenable Metrolab's
national interest, the Secretary of contention that the layoff of the 94 rank-and-
Labor and Employment may assume file employees was temporary, despite the
jurisdiction over the dispute and recall of some of the laid off workers.
decide it or certify the same to the
Commission for compulsory If Metrolab intended the layoff of the 94
arbitration. Such assumption or workers to be temporary, it should have
certification shall have the effect of plainly stated so in the notices it sent to the
automatically enjoining the intended affected employees and the Department of
or impending strike or lockout as Labor and Employment.
specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already 2. No. Although Article 245 of the Labor
taken place at the time of Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and
assumption or certification, all assist any labor organization to managerial
striking or locked out employees employees, jurisprudence has extended this
19
| Labor Relations-2A
20
| Labor Relations-2A
21
| Labor Relations-2A
interests that might otherwise make him nature of a co-management control of the
eligible to join his rank and file co-workers, business of MERALCO. What is granted by
precisely because of a conflict in those the Secretary
interest. Thus, in Metrolab Industries vs. is participation and representation. Thus,
Roldan-Confesor, We ruled: ...that the there is no impairment of management
Secretary’s order should exclude the prerogatives.
confidential employees from the regular
rank and file employees qualified to become CHECK OFF OF UNION DUES
members of the MEWA bargaining unit. In any increase of union dues or
Hence, employees holding a confidential contributions for mandatory activities, the
position are prohibited from joining the union must submit to the Company a copy
union of the rank and file employees. of its board resolution increasing the union
dues or authorizing such contributions. If a
UNION REPRESENTATION IN board resolution is submitted, the Company
COMMITTEES shall deduct union dues from all union
Article 211 (A)(g) of the Labor Codes members after a majority of the union
provides: To ensure the participation of members have submitted their individual
workers in decision and policy-making written authorizations. Only those check-off
processes affecting their rights, duties and authorizations submitted by the union shall
welfare. Denying this opportunity to the be honored by the Company. With respect
Union is to lay the claim that only to special assessments, attorney’s fees,
management has the monopoly of ideas negotiation fees or any other extraordinary
that may improve management strategies in fees, individual authorizations shall be
enhancing the Company’s growth. What necessary before the company may so
every company should remember is that deduct the same.
there might be one among the Union
members who may offer productive and
viable ideas on expanding the Company’s
business horizons.
22
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUES:
(2) Yes, the employees of the plants of
(1) Whether or not Supervisory
Cabuyao, San Fernando and Otis shall be
employees 3 and 4 and the exempt
recognized as one bargaining unit.
employees of the company are
considered confidential employees,
A unit to be appropriate must effect
hence ineligible from joining a union.
a grouping of employees who have
(2) Whether or not the employees of the
substantial, mutual interests in wages,
three plants constitute an appropriate
hours, working conditions and other
single bargaining unit.
subjects of collective bargaining. It is readily
seen that the employees in the instant case
HELD:
have "community or mutuality of interests,"
(1) No, said employees do not fall within the
which is the standard in determining the
term “confidential employees” who may
proper constituency of a collective
be prohibited from joining a union.
bargaining unit. It is undisputed that they all
belong to the Magnolia Poultry Division of
Confidential employees are those
San Miguel Corporation. This means that,
who (1) assist or act in a confidential
23
| Labor Relations-2A
FACTS:
Petitioner is a duly-registered banking
institution in Cebu, while private respondent
APSOTEU-TUCP was a labor organization
duly-registered with the Labor Department.
APSOTEU filed a petition for certification
election of the 5 supervisory employees.
SRBI filed a motion to dismiss the union's
petition on two grounds. First, that the
members of union were in fact managerial
or confidential employees and were to be
disqualified from forming or joining unions.
Second, the Association of Labor Unions-
TUCP was representing the union. Since
ALU-TUCP also sought to represent the
rank-and-file employees of SRBI, there was
a violation of the principle of separation of
unions. The union argued that its members
were not managerial employees but merely
supervisory employees.
24
| Labor Relations-2A
FABON
HELD: No.
The petitioner bank failed to show that their DLSU vs. DLSU EMPLOYEES
Cashiers, Accountant, and Acting Chief of ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA)
the Loans Department possessed G.R. No. 109002 April 12, 2000
managerial powers and duties. At best, they
only had recommendatory powers subject to FACTS:
evaluation, review, and final decision by the
bank's management. The job description DLSU (the University) and DLSU
forms submitted by petitioner clearly show Employees Association—National
that the union members in question may not Federation of Teachers and Employees
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, Union (UNION) entered into a CBA. Before
assign, or discipline employees. Moreover, the expiration of the CBA, the Union
the forms also do not indicate that said initiated negotiations with the University for
officers could formulate and execute
a new CBA. After several conciliation-
management policies which are normally
expected of management officers. Neither mediation meetings, a partial CBA was
could the union members be treated as thereafter executed by the parties.
confidential employees. Although the
cashier serves the bank's management, it There arose an issue regarding the
could not be deemed to have access to propriety of the inclusion of a union shop
confidential information specifically relating clause in the CBA, in addition to the existing
to SRBI's labor relations policies.
maintenance of membership clause.
As regards the issue on the violation of the
principle of separation of unions, records The University avers that ". . . it is in the
show that respondent union was initially spirit of the exercise of the constitutional
assisted by ALU during its preliminary right to self-organization that every
stages. A local union maintains its separate individual should be able to freely choose
personality despite affiliation with a larger
whether to become a member of the Union
national federation. APSOTEU-TUCP had
separate legal personality from ALU and or not. The right to join a labor organization
TUCP. should carry with it the corollary right not to
join the same. This position of the University
The law frowns on a union where the is but in due recognition of the individual's
membership is composed of both free will and capability for judgment." The
supervisors and rank-and-file employees, University assails the Union's demand for a
for fear that conflicts of interest may arise in
union shop clause as ". . . definitely unjust
the areas of discipline, collective bargaining,
and strikes. However, in the present case, and amounts to oppression. Moreover, such
none of the members of the respondent a demand is repugnant to democratic
union came from the rank-and-file principles and the constitutionally
employees of the bank. guaranteed freedom of individuals to join or
not to join an association as well as their
right to security of tenure, particularly, on
the part of present employees."
25
| Labor Relations-2A
26
| Labor Relations-2A
27
| Labor Relations-2A
28
| Labor Relations-2A
29
| Labor Relations-2A
Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA's file the instant complaint. In support of this
shift of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary assertion, PSEA-NCW submitted in
General Serafin Ayroso wrote Mariles C. evidence a Katunayan signed by 111 out of
Romulo requesting a copy of PSI's audited 120 rank and file employees of PSI
financial statement. Ayroso explained that disauthorizing Ayroso or PAFLU from
with the dismissal of PSEA-WATUs election instituting any action in their behalf.
protest the time was ripe for the parties to
enter into a collective bargaining In a Decision rendered on 30 June 1995 the
agreement. On 30 July 1994 PSI through its Labor Arbiter declared PSEA's disaffiliation
personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied from PAFLU invalid and held PSI, PSEA-
the request citing as reason PSEA's PAFLU and their respective officers guilty of
disaffiliation from PAFLU and its unfair labor practice. The Decision
subsequent affiliation with NCW. explained that despite PSEA-PAFLU's
status as the sole and exclusive bargaining
Agitated by PSI's recognition of PSEA- agent of PSI's rank and file employees, the
NCW, PAFLU through Serafin Ayroso filed a company knowingly sanctioned and
complaint for unfair labor practice against confederated with Dakila in actively
PSI, its president Mariles Romulo and assisting a rival union. This, according to
personnel manager Francisco Dakila. the Labor Arbiter, was a classic case of
PAFLU alleged that aside from PSIs refusal interference for which PSI could be held
to bargain collectively with its workers, the responsible. As PSEA-NCW's personality
company through its president and was not accorded recognition, its collective
personnel manager, was also liable for bargaining agreement with PSI was struck
interfering with its employees' union down for being invalid. Ayroso's legal
activities. Two days later or on 6 October personality to file the complaint was
1994 Ayroso filed another complaint in sustained on the ratiocination that under the
behalf of PAFLU for unfair labor practice Labor Code no petition questioning the
against Francisco Dakila. Through Ayroso majority status of the incumbent bargaining
PAFLU claimed that Dakila was present in agent shall be entertained outside of the
PSEA's organizational meeting thereby sixty (60)-day period immediately before the
confirming his illicit participation in union expiry date of such five (5)-year term of the
activities. Ayroso added that the members collective bargaining agreement that the
of the local union had unwittingly fallen into parties may enter into. Accordingly,
the manipulative machinations of PSI and judgment was rendered ordering PSI,
were lured into endorsing a collective PSEA-PAFLU and their officers to pay
bargaining agreement which was PAFLU P150,000.00 in damages.
detrimental to their interests. The two (2)
complaints were thereafter consolidated. PSI, PSEA and their respective officers
appealed to the National Labor Relations
PSI, its president Mariles C. Romulo, and its Commission (NLRC). But the NLRC upheld
personnel manager Dakila moved for the the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and
dismissal of the complaint on the ground conjectured that since an election protest
that the issue of disaffiliation was an inter- questioning PSEA-PAFLU's certification as
union conflict which lay beyond the the sole and exclusive bargaining agent was
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. On the pending resolution before the Secretary of
other hand, PSEA-NCW took the cudgels Labor, PSEA could not validly separate from
for its officers who were being sued in their PAFLU, join another national federation and
capacities as former officers of PSEA- subsequently enter into a collective
PAFLU and asserted that since PSEA was bargaining agreement with its employer-
no longer affiliated with PAFLU, Ayroso or company.
PAFLU for that matter had no personality to
30
| Labor Relations-2A
31
| Labor Relations-2A
becomes clearly apparent. There is nothing dismissed at the first instance for failure to
shown in the records nor is it claimed by state a cause of action.
PAFLU that the local union was expressly
forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation Policy considerations dictate that in
nor were there any conditions imposed for a weighing the claims of a local union as
valid breakaway. As such, the pendency of against those of a national federation, those
an election protest involving both the mother of the former must be preferred.
federation and the local union did not Parenthetically though, the desires of the
constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation. mother federation to protect its locals are
Neither was it disputed by PAFLU that 111 not altogether to be shunned. It will however
signatories out of the 120 members of the be to err greatly against the Constitution if
local union, or an equivalent of 92.5% of the the desires of the federation would be
total union membership supported the claim favored over those of its members. That, at
of disaffiliation and had in fact disauthorized any rate, is the policy of the law. For if it
PAFLU from instituting any complaint in were otherwise, instead of protection, there
their behalf. Surely, this is not a case where would be disregard and neglect of the lowly
one or two members of the local union workingmen.
decided to disaffiliate from the mother
federation, but it is a case where almost all
local union members decided to disaffiliate.
32
| Labor Relations-2A
33
| Labor Relations-2A
34
| Labor Relations-2A
execution against Marina to reinstate AWUM. Respondent Metro had about 4,000
individual respondents and to pay them the employees, and around 2,000 of these were
salary adjustments. Marina then once more members of AWU. It is evident that
went to the Court in G.R. Nos. 91223-26 individual respondents had failed to muster
and filed a Petition for certiorari to invalidate the necessary majority in order to justify
the writ of execution. G.R. Nos. 91223-26 their disaffiliation. Thus, in the referendum
were consolidated with G.R. Nos. 87266- held at the PTGWO compound to determine
69. whether individual respondents should be
expelled from AWU, 1,229 members out of
ISSUES: 1,695 members present voted for expulsion
1. WON AWU was justified in expelling its of individual respondents. In sum, the
membership the 11 individual respondents. attempted disaffiliation of the 11 private
2. WON Metro and Marina should be held respondents from the petitioner mother
solidary liable with AWU for the payment of union and the effort to organize either a new
backwages. local of the mother union or an entirely new
and separate union, did not, under the
HELD: circumstances of this case, constitute
protected activities of the 11 individual
1. YES. AWU was justified in expelling respondents.
from its membership the 11 individual
respondents. 2. Strictly speaking, in view of the
conclusion above that AWU was justified in
AWUM as a local union, being an entity expelling individual respondents from its
separate and distinct from AWU, is free to membership, neither AWU nor Metro/Marina
serve the interest of all its members and would be liable to individual respondents for
enjoys the freedom to disaffiliate, such right the backwages accruing during this Second
to disaffiliate may be exercised, and is thus Period.
considered a protected labor activity, only
when warranted by circumstances. In the interest of substantial and expeditious
Generally, a labor union may disaffiliate justice, however, we believe that the
from the mother union to form a local or backwages accruing during the Second
independent union only during the 60-day Period should be paid and shared by AWU
freedom period immediately preceding the and by Metro Marina, on a 50-50 basis. The
expiration of the CBA. Even before the equitable considerations which impel the
onset of the freedom period, disaffiliation Court to hold AWU liable for one-half of the
may still be carried out, but must be backwages during the Second Period
effected by a majority of the members in the include:
bargaining unit. This happens when there is
a substantial shift in allegiance on the part (a) the fact that Metro had been reluctant to
of the majority of the members of the union. comply with the demand of AWU to
In such a case, however, the CBA continues terminate the services of individual
to bind the members of the new or respondents and had wanted to give the
disaffiliated and independent union up to the latter procedural due process, but gave in to
CBA's expiration date. the demands of AWU;
(b) that AWU had pressed Metro very hard
The record does not show that individual and indeed went on strike against Metro
respondents had disaffiliated during the when Metro refused simply to terminate the
freedom period. The record does, however, services of the individual respondents;
show that only 11 members of AWU had (c) that AWU, instead of waiting for final
decided to disaffiliate from AWU and form judicial determination of the legality of its
expulsion of individual respondents, chose
35
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
Whether or not TMPCLU is a legitimate
labor organization that can file for petition or
certification election.
HELD:
No. TMPCLU is not a legitimate labor
organization.
36
| Labor Relations-2A
37
| Labor Relations-2A
38
| Labor Relations-2A
also take some positive steps to realize that bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said
intent. The procedure for union membership election. However, the reverse is not always
is usually embodied in the union’s true; an employee belonging to the
constitution and bylaws. An employee who appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a
becomes a union member acquires the member of the union cannot vote in the
rights and the concomitant obligations that union election, unless otherwise authorized
go with this new status and becomes bound by the constitution and bylaws of the
by the union’s rules and regulations. If a union. Verily, union affairs and elections
member of a union dislikes the provisions of cannot be decided in a non-union activity.
the by-laws, he may seek to have them
amended or may withdraw from the union; In both elections, there are procedures
otherwise, he must abide by them. It is not to be followed. Thus, the October 4, 1996
the function of courts to decide the wisdom election cannot properly be called
or propriety of legitimate by-laws of a trade a union election, because the procedure laid
union. The agreement of a member on down in the USTFUs CBL for the election of
joining a union to abide by its laws and officers was not followed. It could not have
comply with the will of the lawfully been a certification election either, because
constituted majority does not require a representation was not the issue, and the
member to submit to the determination of proper procedure for such election was not
the union any question involving his followed. The participation of non-union
personal rights. members in the election aggravated its
irregularity.
Union Election vs. Certification Election
39
| Labor Relations-2A
40
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
It submitted only minutes of the local
Can a special assessment be validly
deducted by a labor union from the lump- membership meetings when what is
sum pay of its members, granted under a required is a written resolution adopted at
collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the general meeting. Worse still, the
notwithstanding a subsequent minutes of three of those local meetings
disauthorization of the same by a majority of held were recorded by a union director and
the union members?
not by the union secretary. The minutes
submitted to the Company contained no list
HELD: of the members present and no record of
the votes cast. Since it is quite evident that
No. the Union did not comply with the law at
every turn, the only conclusion that may be
After a careful review of the records of this
made therefrom is that there was no valid
case, We are convinced that the deduction
of the 10% special assessment by the levy of the special assessment pursuant to
Union was not made in accordance with the paragraph (n) of Article 241 of the Labor
requirements provided by law. Code.
41
| Labor Relations-2A
42
| Labor Relations-2A
43
| Labor Relations-2A
44
| Labor Relations-2A
45
| Labor Relations-2A
46
| Labor Relations-2A
events, least a rational basis why the Labor Code is misplaced for not every
union would wield a strike based on legitimate labor organization possesses the
alleged unfair labor practices; it did rights mentioned therein. Article 242 (a)
not even bother to substantiate must be read in relation to Article 255.
during the conciliation proceedings. Finally, the Court affirmed the decision of
It is not enough that the union the NLRC and CA but modified in terms that
believed that the employer only those members of the Union who did
committed acts of unfair labor not commit illegal acts during the course of
practice when the circumstances the illegal strike should be reinstated but
clearly negate even prima facie without back wages.
showing to warrant such a belief."
47
| Labor Relations-2A
48
| Labor Relations-2A
49
| Labor Relations-2A
dismissed the petition. Hence, this present faith on the part of the representative must
petition. be proven. It must be based on facts borne
on record. Mere assertions, as what
petitioners-appellants proffer, do not suffice.
Issue: Whether petitioners have a legal right
to intervene and pursue the case INOCENTES_51
50
| Labor Relations-2A
51
| Labor Relations-2A
53
| Labor Relations-2A
54
| Labor Relations-2A
merely an afterthought. The accusation practice, and also supports the inference of
occurred after the arguments and surface bargaining, in the case at bar,
differences over the economic provisions Umali, in a meeting dated May 18, 1993,
became heated and the parties had become requested the Bank to validate its
frustrated. guestimates on the data of the rank and file.
However, Umali failed to put his request in
Surface bargaining writing as provided for in Article 242(c) 1 of
Surface bargaining is defined as going the Labor Code.
through the motions of negotiating without
any legal intent to reach an agreement. The The Union, did not, as the Labor Code
determination of whether a party has requires, send a written request for the
engaged in unlawful surface bargaining is issuance of a copy of the data about the
usually a difficult one because it involves Banks rank and file employees. Moreover,
the question of whether an employer’s as alleged by the Union, the fact that the
conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to Bank made use of the aforesaid
bargain in good faith or is merely hard guestimates, amounts to a validation of the
bargaining. data it had used in its presentation.
The minutes of meetings from March 12, *1Article 242. Rights of Legitimate Labor
1993 to June 15, 1993 do not show that the Organization
Bank had any intention of violating its duty
to bargain with the Union. The minutes of (c) To be furnished by the employer, upon
the meetings show that both the Bank and written request, with the annual audited
the Union exchanged economic and non- financial statements, including the balance
economic proposals and counter-proposals. sheet and the profit and loss statement,
within thirty (30) calendar days from the
The Union has not been able to show that date of receipt of the request, after the
the Bank had done acts, both at and away union has been duly recognized by the
from the bargaining table, which tend to employer or certified as the sole and
show that it did not want to reach an exclusive bargaining representatives of the
agreement with the Union or to settle the employees in the bargaining unit, or within
differences between it and the Union. sixty (60) calendar days before the
Admittedly, the parties were not able to expiration of the existing collective
agree and reached a deadlock. However, it bargaining agreement, or during the
is herein emphasized that the duty to collective negotiation;collective bargaining
bargain does not compel either party to agreement, or during the collective
agree to a proposal or require the making of negotiation;
a concession. Hence, the parties failure to
agree did not amount to ULP under Article
248(g) for violation of the duty to bargain.
55
| Labor Relations-2A
56
| Labor Relations-2A
57
| Labor Relations-2A
Thereafter, the contending parties filed their adjustment should the increase fall short of
position papers pertaining to unresolved the inflation rate.
issues. Because of the strike, private
respondent terminated the employment of The alleged “similarity” in the situation of
some officers of petitioner union. The Caltex and Shell cannot be considered a
legality of these dismissals brought valid ground for a demand of wage
additional contentious issues. increase, in the absence of a showing that
the two companies are also similar in
“substantial aspects,” as discussed above.
Again, the parties tried to resolve their True, union members have the right to
differences through conciliation. Failing to demand wage increases through their
come to any substantial agreement, the collective force; but it is equally cogent
parties decided to refer the problem to the that they should also be able to justify an
secretary of labor and employment. appreciable increase in wages. We
observe that private respondent’s detailed
allegations on productivity are unrebutted. It
ISSUE: is noteworthy that petitioner ignored this
argument of private respondent and based
1. Petitioner questions public its demand for wage increase not on the
respondent’s resolution of five ground that they were as productive as the
issues in the CBA, specifically on Shell employees. Thus, we cannot attribute
wage increase, union security grave abuse of discretion to public
clause, retirement benefits or
respondent.
application of the new retirement
plan, signing bonus and grievance
and arbitration machineries; and
2. Whether or not the Honorable 2. Union Security Clause. Petitioner
Secretary of Labor and Employment
committed grave abuse of discretion argues that in spite of the provisions on the
in resolving the instant labor dispute. “union security clause,” it may expel a
member only on any of three grounds: non-
HELD: payment of dues, subversion, or conviction
for a crime involving moral turpitude. If the
The petition is partly meritorious. employee’s act does not constitute any of
these three grounds, the member would
1. Wage Increase. Petitioner maintains that
continue to be employed by private
the salaries of Shell Refinery employees be
respondent. Thus, the disagreement
used as a “reference point” in upgrading the
between petitioner and private respondent
compensation of private respondent’s
on this issue is not only “procedural” but
employees because these two companies
also “substantial.”
are in the “same industry and their refineries
are both in Batangas.” Thus, the wage We agree with petitioner. The
increase of petitioner’s members should be disagreement between petitioner and
“15%/15%/15%.” Private respondent private respondent on the union security
counters with a “proposed 9% 7% 7% clause should have been definitively
increase for the same period with automatic resolved by public respondent. The labor
58
| Labor Relations-2A
59
| Labor Relations-2A
5. Signing Bonus. Petitioner asseverates issues to the secretary of labor for his
that the “signing bonus is an existing benefit resolution, they should not expect their
embodied in the old CBA.” 42 It explains that positions to be adopted in toto. It is
public respondent erred in removing the understood that they defer to his wisdom
award of a signing bonus xxx and objectivity in insuring industrial
peace. And unless they can clearly
Although proposed by petitioner, 45 the demonstrate bias, arbitrariness,
signing bonus was not accepted by private capriciousness or personal hostility on
respondent. 46 Besides, a signing bonus is the part of such public officer, the Court
not a benefit which may be demanded will not interfere or substitute the said
under the law. Rather, it is now claimed by officer’s judgment with its own.
petitioner under the principle of
“maintenance of existing benefits” of the old
CBA. However, as clearly explained by
private respondent, a signing bonus may
not be demanded as a matter of right. If it
is not agreed upon by the parties or
unilaterally offered as an additional
incentive by private respondent, the
condition for awarding it must be duly
satisfied. In the present case, the
condition sine qua non for its grant — a
non-strike — was not complied with. In
fact, private respondent categorically sated
in its counter-proposal — to the exclusion of
those agreed upon before — that the new
CBA would constitute the only agreement
between the parties.
60
| Labor Relations-2A
61
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
62
| Labor Relations-2A
WON Top Form's promise at the collective provisions should be "construed liberally
bargaining conferences to implement any rather than narrowly and technically, and
government-mandated wage increases on the courts must place a practical and
an across-the-board basis is binding upon realistic construction upon it, giving due
the parties considering it was not part of the consideration to the context in which it is
CBA though contained in the Minutes of the negotiated and purpose which it is intended
Meeting to serve." This is founded on the dictum that
a CBA is not an ordinary contract but one
impressed with public interest. It goes
HELD: without saying, however, that only
provisions embodied in the CBA should be
To start with, if there was indeed a promise so interpreted and complied with. Where a
or undertaking on the part of private proposal raised by a contracting party does
respondent to obligate itself to grant an not find print in the CBA, it is not a part
automatic across-the-board wage increase, thereof and the proponent has no claim
petitioner union should have requested or whatsoever to its implementation. Hence,
demanded that such "promise or petitioner union's contention that the
undertaking" be incorporated in the CBA. Minutes of the collective bargaining
After all, petitioner union has the means negotiation meeting forms part of the entire
under the law to compel private respondent agreement is pointless. The Minutes reflects
to incorporate this specific economic the proceedings and discussions
proposal in the CBA. It could have invoked undertaken in the process of bargaining for
Article 252 of the Labor Code defining "duty worker benefits in the same way that the
to bargain," thus, the duty includes minutes of court proceedings show what
"executing a contract incorporating such transpired therein. At the negotiations, it is
agreements if requested by either party." but natural for both management and labor
Petitioner union's assertion that it had to adopt positions or make demands and
insisted on the incorporation of the same offer proposals and counterproposals.
proposal may have a factual basis However, nothing is considered final until
considering the allegations in the the parties have reached an agreement. In
aforementioned joint affidavit of its fact, one of management's usual negotiation
members. However, Article 252 also states strategies is to ". . . agree tentatively as you
that the duty to bargain "does not compel go along with the understanding that
any party to agree to a proposal or make nothing is binding until the entire agreement
any concession." Thus, petitioner union may is reached." If indeed private respondent
not validly claim that the proposal embodied promised to continue with the practice of
in the Minutes of the negotiation forms part granting across the-board salary increases
of the CBA that it finally entered into with ordered by the government, such promise
private respondent. The CBA is the law could only be demandable in law if
between the contracting parties — the incorporated in the CBA. Moreover, by
collective bargaining representative and the making such promise, private respondent
employer company. Compliance with a CBA may not be considered in bad faith or at the
is mandated by the expressed policy to give very least, resorting to the scheme of
protection to labor. In the same vein, CBA feigning to undertake the negotiation
63
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE
HELD.
64
| Labor Relations-2A
self-organization or the right to form The records show that after the initiation of
association. The right to self-organization the collective bargaining process, with the
necessarily includes the right to collective inclusion of Umali in the Unions negotiating
bargaining. panel, the negotiations pushed through. The
complaint was made only on August 16,
Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in 1993 after a deadlock was declared by
the selection of its negotiators or coerces the Union on June 15, 1993.
the Union to exclude from its panel of
negotiators a representative of the Union, It is clear that such ULP charge was merely
and if it can be inferred that the employer an afterthought. The accusation occurred
adopted the said act to yield adverse effects after the arguments and differences over
on the free exercise to right to self- the economic provisions became heated
organization or on the right to collective and the parties had become frustrated. It
bargaining of the employees, ULP under happened after the parties started to involve
Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 personalities. As the public respondent
of the Labor Code is committed. noted, passions may rise, and as a result,
suggestions given under less adversarial
In order to show that the employer situations may be colored with unintended
committed ULP under the Labor Code, meanings.[49] Such is what appears to have
substantial evidence is required to support happened in this case.
the claim. Substantial evidence has
been defined as such relevant evidence as If at all, the suggestion made by Diokno to
a reasonable mind might accept as Divinagracia should be construed as part of
adequate to support a conclusion.[48] In the the normal relations and innocent
case at bar, the Union bases its communications, which are all part of the
claim of interference on the alleged friendly relations between the Union and
suggestions of Diokno to exclude Umali Bank.
from the Unions negotiating panel.
2. The Union alleges that the Bank violated
The circumstances that occurred during the its duty to bargain; hence, committed ULP
negotiation do not show that the suggestion under Article 248(g) when it engaged in
made by Diokno to Divinagracia is an anti- surface bargaining. It alleged that the Bank
union conduct from which it can be inferred just went through the motions of bargaining
that the Bank consciously adopted such act without any intent of reaching an
to yield adverse effects on the free exercise agreement, as evident in the Banks counter-
of the right to self-organization and proposals. It explained that of the 34
collective bargaining of the employees, economic provisions it made, the Bank only
especially considering that such was made 6 economic
undertaken previous to the commencement counterproposals. Further, as borne by the
of the negotiation and simultaneously with minutes of the meetings, the Bank, after
Divinagracias suggestion that the bank indicating the economic provisions it had
lawyers be excluded from its negotiating rejected, accepted, retained or were open
panel. for discussion, refused to make a list of
65
| Labor Relations-2A
66
| Labor Relations-2A
TUPAS for its part, states that the collective workers of the benefits of the said
bargaining agreement, besides being agreement, it shall be recognized and given
vitiated by certain procedural defects, was effect on a temporary basis, subject to the
concluded by ATU with the management results of the certification election. The
only on April 1, 1986 after the filing of the agreement may be continued in force if ATU
petition for certification election on March is certified as the exclusive bargaining
25, 1986. representative of the workers or may be
rejected and replaced in the event that
Issue: WON TUPAS was barred from filing TUPAS emerges as the winner.
a petition for certification election under the
contract-bar rule under Section 3, Rule 5,
Book V of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations. 61_De Leon
Ruling: No.
67
| Labor Relations-2A
62_Del Rosario others are not entitled for the benefits of the
CBA for they were not yet employed much
New Pacific Timber & Supply Company less were members of the bargaining unit
vs NLRC during the term of the CBA.
68
| Labor Relations-2A
ART. 253. Duty to bargain ceased to have force and effect in the year
collectively when there exists a 1984, would be to create a gap during which
collective bargaining agreement. - no agreement would govern, from the time
When there is a collective bargaining the old contract expired to the time a new
agreement, the duty to bargain agreement shall have been entered into.
collectively shall also mean that
b. Yes, the employees hired after the
neither party shall terminate nor
stipulated term of a CBA are
modify such agreement during its entitled to the benefits provided
lifetime. However, either party can thereunder
serve a written notice to terminate or When a collective bargaining contract is
modify the agreement at least sixty entered into by the union representing the
(60) days prior to its expiration employees and the employer, even the non-
date. It shall be the duty of both member employees are entitled to the
parties to keep the status quo and to benefits of the contract. To accord its
continue in full force and effect the benefits only to members of the union
terms and conditions of the existing without any valid reason would constitute
agreement during the 60-day period undue discrimination against nonmembers.
and/or until a new agreement is It is even conceded, that a laborer can claim
reached by the parties. benefits from a CBA entered into between
It is clear from the above provision the company and the union of which he is a
of law that until a new Collective Bargaining member at the time of the conclusion of the
Agreement has been executed by and agreement, after he has resigned from said
between the parties, they are duty-bound to union. his is in consonance with our ruling
keep the status quo and to continue in full that the terms and conditions of a collective
force and effect the terms and conditions of bargaining agreement continue to have
the existing agreement. The law does not force and effect beyond the stipulated term
provide for any exception nor qualification when no new agreement is executed by and
as to which of the economic provisions of between the parties to avoid or prevent the
the existing agreement are to retain force situation where no collective bargaining
and effect; therefore, it must be understood agreement at all would govern between the
as encompassing all the terms and employer company and its employees.
conditions in the said agreement. Sccal r
69
| Labor Relations-2A
70
| Labor Relations-2A
Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code maintain the status quo while the
have been enacted pursuant to the police determination is being made.
power of the State to promote the order,
safety, health, morals and general welfare The return to work order does not so much
of society confer a right as it imposes a duty; and
while as a right it may be waived, it must be
On the issue of the legality of the strike discharged as a duty even against the
committed, UFE seeks to absolve itself by worker's will. Returning to work in this
pointing out qualifying factors such as situation is not a matter of option or
motives, good faith, absence of findings on voluntariness but of obligation. The worker
specific participation and/or liability, and must return to his job together with his co-
limiting the no-strike provision to economic workers so the operations of the company
strikes. can be resumed and it can continue serving
the public and promoting its interest.":
UFE completely misses the underlying
principle embodied in Art. 264(g) on the We also wish to point out that an
settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption and/or certification order of the
assumption and certification orders are Secretary of Labor automatically results in a
executory in character and are to be strictly return-to-work of all striking workers,
complied with by the parties even during the whether or not a corresponding order has
pendency of any petition questioning their been issued by the Secretary of Labor.
validity. This extraordinary authority given to Thus, the striking workers erred when they
the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving continued with their strike alleging absence
at a peaceful and speedy solution to labor of a return-to-work order. Article 264(g) is
disputes, without jeopardizing national clear. Once an assumption/certification
interests. order is issued, strikes are enjoined, or if
one has already taken place, all strikers
Regardless therefore of their motives, or the shall immediately return to work.
validity of their claims, the striking workers
must cease and/or desist from any and all A strike that is undertaken despite the
acts that tend to, or undermine this authority issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an
of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption or certification order becomes a
assumption and/or certification order is prohibited activity and thus illegal.
issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore
return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor
practices on the part of the company, to
justify their actions.
71
| Labor Relations-2A
64_Dizon (February and August 2000) agency and does not automatically result
from a mere increase in the wages of
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. SEC. petitioner's employees. Collective
OF LABOR LEONARDO QUISUMBING bargaining disputes particularly those
and MERALCO EMPLOYEES AND affecting the national interest and public
WORKERS ASSOC. service "requires due consideration and
proper balancing of the interests of the
G.R. No. 127598 February 22, 2000 parties to the dispute and of those who
FACTS: might be affected by the dispute. It should
be noted that the relations between labor
In 1999, the Supreme Court promulgated a and capital is impressed with public interest
decision directing the parties to execute a which must yield to the common
CBA which provided for increase in wages good. Neither party should act oppressively
and retroactive application of arbitral against the other or impair the interest or
awards. MERALCO filed this petition convenience of the public. Besides, matters
arguing that an increase in wages will result of salary increases are part of management
in higher rates of electricity which will be prerogative.
passed to the consumers. The Union
likewise asks for reconsideration insofar as
the 1999 decision which denied them the 2. ON THE RETROACTIVITY OF
benefit of being granted loans to set up a ARBITRAL AWARDS
cooperative. Finally, the Union questions
the right given to MERALCO in contracting Labor laws are silent as to when an arbitral
out jobs without need to consult the Union. award in a labor dispute where the
Secretary had assumed jurisdiction by virtue
ISSUES: of Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code shall
1. W/N the increase in wages will result in retroact. In general, a CBA negotiated within
higher prices of electricity. six months after the expiration of the
existing CBA retroacts to the day
2. W/N the grant of Collective Bargaining immediately following such date and if
Agreement (CBA) arbitral awards agreed thereafter, the effectivity depends on
retroactive the agreement of the parties. On the other
hand, the law is silent as to the retroactivity
3. W/N the cooperative may demand for the of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not
loan for a cooperative by virtue of the mutual agreement of the
parties but by intervention of the
4. W/N contracting without need to consult
government. Despite the silence of the law,
the Union is a valid provision
the Court rules herein that CBA arbitral
RULING: awards granted after six months from the
expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to
1. ON THE INCREASE IN WAGES such time agreed upon by both employer
and the employees or their union. Absent
No, it doesn’t follow. An increase in the
such an agreement as to retroactivity, the
prices of electric current needs the approval
award shall retroact to the first day after the
of the appropriate regulatory government
72
| Labor Relations-2A
4. ON CONTRACTING WITHOUT
CONSULTING THE UNION
73
| Labor Relations-2A
74
| Labor Relations-2A
ART. 253-A. Terms of a collective Anent the alleged lack of basis for the
bargaining agreement. --- Any retroactivity provisions awarded, we would
Collective Bargaining Agreement stress that the provision of law invoked by
that the parties may enter into shall, the Hospital, Article 253-A of the Labor
insofar as the representation aspect Code, speaks of agreements by and
is concerned, be for a term of five (5) between the parties, and not arbitral awards
years. No petition questioning the . . . (p. 818 Rollo).
majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be Therefore, in the absence of a specific
entertained and no certification provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of
election shall be conducted by the the effectivity of arbitral awards issued by
Department of Labor and the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Article
Employment outside of the sixty-day 263(g) of the Labor Code, such as herein
period immediately before the date involved, public respondent is deemed
of expiry of such five year term of vested with plenary and discretionary
the Collective Bargaining powers to determine the effectivity
Agreement. All other provisions of thereof (223 SCRA 779, 792-793 [1993];
the Collective Bargaining Agreement reiterated in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v.
shall be renegotiated not later than Confessor 231 SCRA 41 [1994]).
three (3) years after its
execution. Any agreement on such Indeed, petitioner has not shown that the
other provisions of the Collective question of effectivity was not included in
Bargaining Agreement entered into the general agreement of the parties to
within six (6) months from the date submit their dispute for arbitration. To the
of expiry of the term of such other contrary, as the order of the labor arbiter
provisions as fixed in such Collective states, this question was among those
Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact submitted for arbitration by the parties:
to the day immediately following
such date. If any such agreement is
entered into beyond six months, the
parties shall agree on the duration of
75
| Labor Relations-2A
2.As regards the "Effectivity and Duration" day of the CBA. In the dispositive portion,
clause, the company proposes that the however, the period to which the award
collective bargaining agreement shall take shall retroact was inadvertently stated as
effect only upon its signing and shall remain beginning on December 1, 1995 up to
in full force and effect for a period of five November 30, 1997.
years. The union proposes that the
agreement shall take effect retroactive to In resolving the motions for reconsideration
March 15, 1989, the expiration date of the in this case, this Court took into account the
old CBA. fact that petitioner belongs to an industry
imbued with public interest. As such, this
And after an evaluation of the parties’ Court cannot ignore the enormous cost that
respective contention and argument thereof, petitioner will have to bear as a
it is believed that that of the union is fair and consequence of the full retroaction of the
reasonable. It is the observation of this arbitral award to the date of expiry of the
Arbitrator that in almost subsequent CBAs, CBA, and the inevitable effect that it would
the effectivity of the renegotiated CBA, have on the national economy. On the other
usually and most often is made effective hand, under the policy of social justice, the
retroactive to the date when the immediately law bends over backward to accommodate
preceding CBA expires so as to give a the interests of the working class on the
semblance of continuity. Hence, for this humane justification that those with less
particular case, it is believed that there is privilege in life should have more in law.
nothing wrong adopting the stand of the Balancing these two contrasting interests,
union, that is that this CBA be made this Court turned to the dictates of fairness
retroactive effective March 15, 1989. and equitable justice and thus arrived at a
formula that would address the concerns of
Parenthetically, the Decision rendered in the both sides. Hence, this Court held that the
case at bar on January 27, 1999 ordered arbitral award in this case be made to
that the CBA should be effective for a term retroact to the first day after the six-month
of two years counted from December 28, period following the expiration of the last
1996 (the date of the Secretary of Labor’s day of the CBA, i.e., from June 1, 1996 to
disputed Order on the parties’ motion for May 31, 1998.
reconsideration) up to December 27,
1998. That is to say, the arbitral award was This Court, therefore, maintains the
given prospective effect. foregoing rule in the assailed Resolution pro
hac vice. It must be clarified, however, that
Upon a reconsideration of the Decision, this consonant with this rule, the two-year
Court issued the assailed Resolution which effectivity period must start from June 1,
ruled that where an arbitral award granted 1996 up to May 31, 1998, not December 1,
beyond six months after the expiration of 1995 to November 30, 1997.1âwphi1
the existing CBA, and there is no agreement
between the parties as to the date of
effectivity thereof, the arbitral award shall
retroact to the first day after the six-month
period following the expiration of the last
76
| Labor Relations-2A
77
| Labor Relations-2A
parties through NCMB. As prayed for by Bargaining Agreement that the parties may
private respondents, the Secretary of Labor enter into shall, insofar as the
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute representation aspect is concerned, be for a
on November 10, 1992. Several conciliation term of five (5) years … All other provisions
meetings were held but still no of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
agreement/settlement was arrived at by shall be renegotiated not later than three (3)
both parties. years after its execution.
78
| Labor Relations-2A
79
| Labor Relations-2A
HELD: NO.
80
| Labor Relations-2A
81
| Labor Relations-2A
FACTS:
82
| Labor Relations-2A
subjected to further hearing; and that PAL adopted cannot be properly implemented in
should pay damages. the absence of full cooperation of the
employees. Such cooperation cannot be
PAL asserts its management prerogative attained if the employees are left out in the
and further alleged that it had not violated determination of cardinal and fundamental
the CBA or any provision of the Labor Code. matters affecting their employment.
It maintained that Article 253 of the Labor
Code cited by PALEA was inapplicable
since the current CBA had been negotiated.
HELD: Yes.
83
| Labor Relations-2A
84
| Labor Relations-2A
disregarded. In such cases, the corporation Jurisprudence also dictates that it is grave
will be considered as a mere association of abuse of discretion to treat two companies
persons. The members or stockholders of as a single bargaining unit when these
the corporation will be considered as the companies are indubitably distinct entities
corporation, that is liability will attach directly with separate juridical personalities.
to the officers and stockholders. The
doctrine applies when the corporate fiction Acrylic not being an extension or expansion
is used to defeat public convenience, justify of Indophil, the rank-and-file employees
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or working at Acrylic should not be recognized
when it is made as a shield to confuse the as part of, and/or within the scope of the
legitimate issues, or where a corporation is petitioner, as the bargaining representative
the mere alter ego or business conduit of a of Indophil.
person, or where the corporation is so
organized and controlled and its affairs are
so conducted as to make it merely an
instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct
of another corporation.
85
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not petitioner union’s
petition for certificate election shall be
Respondent union applied for
granted.
certificate of election among the rank-and-
file employees of CMC. The Med-Arbiter
granted the same. Although CMC
questioned the former’s legal status, the HELD:
union was able to register as an
NO.
independent union and secure another
certificate of election. Elections were finally It is true that the certificate was filed
held, and the union became the sole and after the lapse of one year from the time of
exclusive bargaining representative of the declaration of a final certification result and
rank and file employees at CMC. However, that no bargaining deadlock had been
CMC refuse to negotiate with respondent submitted for conciliation or arbitration,
union but instead file a petition for the however respondent union was not remiss
cancellation of the certificate of registration on its rights to enter into a CBA for it was
of respondent union. Due to CMC’s refusal the CMC which refused to bargain
to negotiate, respondent union stage a collectively.
strike, to which the SOLE assume
jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the case for the Deadlock is the counteraction of
cancellation of respondent union’s things producing entire stoppage. It
registration reached the Supreme Court presupposes reasonable effort at good faith
which declared with finality the legality of bargaining which, despite noble intentions,
respondent union. The Court issued an does not conclude in agreement between
Entry of Judgment on March 23, 1994. The the parties.
next day, petitioner union filed a petition for
86
| Labor Relations-2A
87
| Labor Relations-2A
88
| Labor Relations-2A
union also requested voluntary recognition previously allowed under the Labor Code
by the company. Instead of granting the had been discontinued as a method of
request, the company petitioned for a selecting the exclusive bargaining agents of
certification election. The union moved to the workers. Certification election is the
dismiss on the ground that it did not ask the most effective and the most democratic way
company to bargain collectively with it. As of determining which labor organization can
its motion was denied, the union brought the truly represent the working force in the
matter to this Court. In sustaining the appropriate bargaining unit of a company.
company’s stand, this Court ruled:
89
| Labor Relations-2A
There is something dubious about the fact freedom of choice because it does not
that just ten months after the employees establish the kind of industrial peace
had voted that they did not want any union contemplated by the law. Such situation
to represent them, they would be obtains in this case. The petitioner entered
expressing support for petitioner. The doubt into a CBA with Permex Producer when its
is compounded by the fact that in sworn status as exclusive bargaining agent of the
affidavits some employees claimed that they employees had not been established yet.
had either been coerced or misled into
signing a document which turned out to be
in support of petitioner as its collective
bargaining agent. Although there were
retractions, we agree with the Solicitor
General that retractions of statements by
employees adverse to a company (or its
favored union) are oftentimes tainted with
coercion and intimidation. For how could
one explain the seeming flip-flopping of
position taken by the employees? The
figures claimed by petitioner to have been
given to it in support cannot readily be
accepted as true.
90
| Labor Relations-2A
91
| Labor Relations-2A
92
| Labor Relations-2A
FACTS: HELD:
The respondent union filed a petition for First of all, in a petition for review
certification election before the DOLE, on certiorari, a petitioner can raise only
alleging that Obrero Pilipino and its chapter questions of law. The SC is not the proper
affiliate, LAMCOR Chapter were legitimate venue to consider a factual issue as it is not
labor organizations. It averred that the said a trier of facts. Findings of fact of
bargaining unit, composed of more or less administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
160 rank-and-file employees, is bodies, which have acquired expertise
unorganized and that there has been no because their jurisdiction is confined to
certification election conducted for the past specific matters, are generally accorded not
12 months prior to the filing of the petition. only great respect but even finality.
The petitioner company moved to dismiss
the petition for certification election and 1. YES, based on the finding of the SOLE,
further asserted that even if the respondent the respondent union is a legitimate labor
union was issued a certificate of organization. As correctly stressed by the
registration, it could not file a petition for CA, a local or chapter need not be
certification election since its legal registered to become a legitimate labor
personality was at question. organization because a local or chapter
acquires legal personality as a labor
Med-Arbiter Bactin dismissed the petition organization from the date of filing of the
for certification election for the respondent complete documents enumerated in Section
unions lack of legal personality because it 1of Rule VI of the Implementing Rules of
failed to indicate its principal office on the Book V (as amended by Department Order
documents it submitted to the Regional [D.O.] No. 9).
Office. The respondent union appealed the
case to the SOLE Sto. Tomas, who granted The task of determining whether the
the appeal and remanded the case to the local or chapter has submitted the complete
regional office of origin for the immediate documentary requirements is lodged with
conduct of a certification election. Finding the Regional Office or the BLR. The records
no cogent reason to alter her decision, the of the case show that the respondent union
SOLE denied the motion for submitted the said documents to Regional
reconsideration thereof. Office No. IV and was subsequently issued
certificates. It, therefore, declared that the
Not convinced, the petitioner filed a petition respondent union has acquired legal
for certiorari with the CA, who ruled in favor personality as a labor organization. Absent
of the respondnet union. The petitioner’s any pronouncement to the contrary, such
MR was denied. Hence, this petition for determination of the Labor Relations
review on certiorari. Division Chief will stand, on the presumption
that the duty of determining whether the
ISSUES: respondent union submitted the complete
1)whether or not the respondent union documentary requirements has been
is a legitimate labor organization; regularly performed.
93
| Labor Relations-2A
94
| Labor Relations-2A
The INK employees protested the a labor union or determine which of two or
exclusion of their votes. They filed a petition more unions in an establishment to join, and
to cancel the election alleging that it “was to engage in concerted activities with co-
not fair” and the result thereof did “not workers for purposes of collective
reflect the true sentiments of the majority of bargaining through representatives of their
the employees.” own choosing, or for their mutual aid and
protection. Logically, the right NOT to join,
affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
TUEU-OLALIA opposed the petition. disaffiliate or resign from a labor
It contended that petitioners “do not have organization, is subsumed in the right to
legal personality to protest the results of the join, affiliate with, or assist any union, and to
election because they are not members of maintain membership therein. The right to
either the contending unions, but of the INK form or join a labor organization necessarily
which prohibits its followers to, on religious includes the right to refuse or refrain from
exercising said right. It is self-evident that
grounds, from joining or forming any labor
organization. just as no one should be denied the
exercise of a right granted by law, so also,
no one should be compelled to exercise
such a conferred right. The fact that a
The Med-Arbiter, seeing no merit in person has opted to acquire membership in
the INK employees’ petition, certified the a labor union does not preclude his
TUEU-OLALIA as the sole and exclusive subsequently opting to renounce such
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file membership.
employees. The officer-in-charge of BLR
(Hon. Cresenciano Trajano) sustained the The purpose of a certification
denial by the Med Arbiter of the right to vote election is precisely the ascertainment of
of one hundred forty-one (141) members of the wishes of the majority of the employees
the "Iglesia ni Kristo" (INK). in the appropriate bargaining unit: to be or
not to be represented by a labor
organization, and in the affirmative case, by
which particular labor organization. If the
ISSUE: results of the election should disclose that
the majority of the workers do not wish to be
represented by any union, then their wishes
must be respected, and no union may
Whether or not union properly be certified as the exclusive
membership is a prerequisite in order representative of the workers in the
to vote in a Certification Election. bargaining unit in dealing with the employer
regarding wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment. In the
Certification Election, all members of the
HELD: No unit, whether union members or not, have
the right to vote. Union membership is not
prerequisite. If majority of the unit members
do not want a union, as expressed in the
The right of self-organization certification election, such majority decision
includes the right to organize or affiliate with
95
| Labor Relations-2A
96
| Labor Relations-2A
97
| Labor Relations-2A
98
| Labor Relations-2A
99
| Labor Relations-2A
100
| Labor Relations-2A
compensation to employees despite legal dispute and certified the case for
dismissal. compulsory arbitration. Although there was
no stoppage of work, the fact still remains
that union members picketed and performed
Issues: (1) Whether or not the mass actions concerted actions which clearly violated the
committed by the union on different assumption of jurisdiction and certification
occasions are order of DOLE Secretary.
illegal strikes
(2) Whether or not separation pay (2) No, it should not be awarded. The
should be awarded to union members general rule is that when just causes for
terminating the services of an employee
Held: (1) Yes, the strikes were illegal. There exist, employee is not entitled to separation
were 6 categories of illegal strike: a) when pay. The rationale behind this is that the
contrary to specific prohibition of law; b) lawbreaker should not benefit from their
when it violates specific requirement of law; illegal acts. Exception to this is when the
c) when it is for unlawful purpose; d) when it court finds justification in applying principles
employs unlawful means to achieve of social justice. However, the principle will
objective; e) when it is declared in violation only be considered when cause of dismissal
of existing document; and f) when contrary is other than serious misconduct or that
to existing agreement. which reflects adversely employee’s moral
character. The Court ruled that, considering
that the dismissal of employees was due to
participation in illegal strikes as well as
The Court ruled that the protest
violation of Code of Conduct, the same
actions on February 2001 were not exercise
constitute serious misconduct. It is a
of constitutional right to assemble and ask
transgression of established and definite
Government for redress but in reality
rule of action and implies wrongful intent.
temporary work stoppages that crippled
The claim of union that Toyota breach its
Toyota. The protests were done without
duty to bargain has not been substantiated
satisfying prerequisites of valid strike under
by evidence as to justify union’s strategy to
Article 263 of Labor Code. Also, such
cripple operations of Toyota inflicting almost
violated the Toyota’s Code of Conduct to
50 Million financial damage. The employees
which dismissal is the penalty. The March
were also fully aware of the company’s
2001 strikes were also illegal because
policy on prohibition against concerted
unlawful means were employed. Union
action inimical to company’s interest yet
blocked the the free ingress and egress of 2
they still resorted to mass actions on
plants. The Court disagreed with the
several occasions. Above all, they blatantly
contention of union that there can be no
violated the assumption and certification
strike to speak in May 2001 because
order of DOLE Secretary which only proved
participants were the dismissed employees
their lack of obeisance to the law.
who were on payroll. The Court emphasized
that by that time the DOLE Secretary
already assumed jurisdiction over the labor
101
| Labor Relations-2A
102
| Labor Relations-2A
103
| Labor Relations-2A
78_Reonico
ISSUE
RULING
FACTS
YES. The Court finds the strike
Majority of the employees of illegal and the union officers who
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant participated in the illegal strike and in the
(Sukhothai) organized into a union affiliated commission of illegal acts are declared to
with the Philippine Labor Alliance Council have lost their employment status. It is a
(PLAC-Sukhothai). Later on, the Union filed fact that at the time the strike was staged in
a Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair June 1999, voluntary arbitration between
labor practice such as harassment, fault- the parties was ongoing by virtue of the
finding and union-busting. Sukhothai and January 1999 Submission Agreement. The
the Union entered into an agreement that issue to be resolved under those
there will be no termination of employment proceedings pertained to the very same
during the pendency of the case but that issues stated in the Notice of Strike that is
management may issue memos for violation the commission of unfair labor practices.
of company policies. Until a strike Article 264 of the Labor Code provides: No
transpired where the parties submitted the strike or lockout shall be declared after
issue for voluntary arbitration. However, assumption of jurisdiction by the President
during the proceeding, Sukhothai dismissed or the Secretary or after certification or
a union members due to a quarrel with a co- submission of the dispute to compulsory or
employee, and for undisclosed reasons. voluntary arbitration or during the pendency
Hence, the Union’s Vice President and of cases involving the same grounds for the
other members staged a “wildcat strike” strike or lockout.
which is a strike that is unauthorized by the
Union. When a notice of strike was re-filed,
it turned into a “sit-down strike” and
The Court has held that strikes
thereafter, an “actual strike”. Sukhothai filed
staged in violation of agreements providing
a complaint for illegal strike. The LA ruled
for arbitration are illegal, since these
that the strike was illegal for failure to
agreements must be strictly adhered to and
comply with the mandatory requirements of
respected if their ends are to be achieved.
a lawful strike. The NLRC reversed the
The rationale of the prohibition under Article
decision due to Sukhothai’s violation of their
264 is that once jurisdiction over the labor
agreement that no union member will be
dispute has been properly acquired by
dismissed during the pendency of the case.
competent authority, that jurisdiction should
The CA, however, affirmed the decision of
not be interfered with by the application of
the NLRC. Hence, this present case.
the coercive processes of a strike. Indeed, it
104
| Labor Relations-2A
is among the chief policies of the State to the Union was fully aware that the
promote and emphasize the primacy of free arbitration proceedings were pending, good
collective bargaining and negotiations, faith cannot be invoked as a defense.
including voluntary arbitration, mediation, Hence, the Court declared that their strike
and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, was illegal.
or industrial disputes.
105
| Labor Relations-2A
106
| Labor Relations-2A
107
| Labor Relations-2A
108
| Labor Relations-2A
109
| Labor Relations-2A
the company would agree to their demands Whether or not the overtime boycott
as to the effectivity and duration of the new or work slowdown” by the employees
CBA. The agreement must be effective for 2 constitutes a violation of the CBA which
years. Again, Salazar told the union officers
prohibits the union to stage a strike or
that the matter could be discussed during
formal negotiations unsatisfied with the engage in slowdown or interruption of work.
answer the employees started to engage in
a work slowdown campaign to delay the
production of the company.
HELD:
On September 1993, respondent YES. It’s clear that the actions taken
company filed with NLRC a petition to
declare illegal petitioner union’s “overtime by the union amounted to illegal strike. The
boycott” and work slowdown” . It amounted SC classified the acts by the union as a
to illegal strike. October 1993, respondent “strike on installment basis.” “Slowdown” is
company filed with National Conciliation and an inherently illegal activity wherein the
Mediation Board (NCMB) an urgent request workers purposefully remain at their
for preventive mediation aimed to help the positions and accept wages, but at the
parties in their CBA negotiations. On
same time, select what parts of their allotted
January 1994, petitioner union filed with the
NCMB a “Notice of Strike” citing unfair labor task they want to perform, and refuse to do
allegedly committed by the respondent other work
company. Thereafter a month, Secretary of
Labor Nieves Confessor issued an order
directing respondent company to a).
Immediately accept all striking workers, In the instant case, since there is a
including the 53 terminated union officers; contractual commitment “that there shall be
b). Shop stewards and union members back no strikes, walkouts, stoppage or slowdown
to work under the same terms and of work, boycotts or secondary boycotts x x
conditions; and c). To pay all the unpaid x or any interference with any of the
accrued year end benefits of its employees. operations of the company during CBA. The
workers’ refusal to adhere to the work
On the other hand, petitioner union was
directed to “strictly and immediately comply schedule in force is a slowdown and it is
with the return-to work order”. By inherently illegal activity essentially illegal
September 1995, Secretary Quisumbing even in the absence of a no-strike clause in
approved and adopted the decision of the a CBA. The court also agrees that such
Labor Arbiter Caday declaring the overtime slowdown is generally condemned as
boycott and work slowdown as illegal strike
inherently illicit and unjustifiable because
and found out that the respondent company
is guilty of unfair labor practice. while the employees “continue to work and
remain at their positions and accept the
Petitioner union’s reconsideration and wages paid to them. They select what part
petition for certiorari were denied. Hence, of their allotted tasks they care to perform.
this petition. In other words, they work on their own
terms.
ISSUE:
110
| Labor Relations-2A
111
| Labor Relations-2A
(f) In the present case, NCMB converted IBMs (h) Such disregard of the mediation
notices into preventive mediation as it found proceedings was a blatant violation of the
that the real issues raised are non- Implementing Rules, which explicitly oblige
strikeable. Such order is in pursuance of the the parties to bargain collectively in good
NCMBs duty to exert all efforts at mediation faith and prohibit them from impeding or
[36]
and conciliation to enable the parties to disrupting the proceedings.
[31]
settle the dispute amicably, and in line
with the state policy of favoring voluntary (i) The NCMB having no coercive powers of
modes of settling labor disputes. In
[32] injunction, petitioner sought recourse from
accordance with the Implementing Rules of the public respondent. The NLRC issued a
the Labor Code, the said conversion has the TRO only for free ingress to and egress from
effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed petitioners plants, but did not enjoin the
[33]
by respondent. A case in point is PAL v. unlawful strike itself. It ignored the fatal lack
[34]
Drilon, where we declared a strike illegal of notice of strike, and five months after
for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of came out with a decision summarily
the NCMBs conversion of the notice therein rejecting petitioners cited jurisprudence in
into a preventive mediation case. We ruled, this wise:
thus:
Complainants scholarly and impressive
The NCMB had declared the notice of strike as arguments, formidably supported by a long line
appropriate for preventive mediation. The effect of jurisprudence cannot however be
of that declaration (which PALEA did not ask to appropriately considered in the favorable
be reconsidered or set aside) was to drop the resolution of the instant case for the
case from the docket of notice of strikes, as complainant. The cited jurisprudence do not
provided in Rule 41 of the NCMB Rules, as if squarely cover and apply in this case, as they
there was no notice of strike. During the are not similarly situated and the remedy sought
[37]
pendency of preventive mediation proceedings for were different.
no strike could be legally declared... The strike
which the union mounted, while preventive (j) Unfortunately, the NLRC decision stated no
mediation proceedings were ongoing, was aptly reason to substantiate the above conclusion.
described by the petitioner as an ambush.
(k) Public respondent, in its decision, moreover
(Emphasis supplied)
ruled that there was a lack of factual basis in
(g) Clearly, therefore, applying the aforecited issuing the injunction. Contrary to the
ruling to the case at bar, when the NCMB NLRCs finding, we find that at the time the
ordered the preventive mediation on May 2, injunction was being sought, there existed a
1994, respondent had thereupon lost the threat to revive the unlawful strike as
notices of strike it had filed. Subsequently, evidenced by the flyers then being circulated
however, it still defiantly proceeded with the by the IBM-NCR Council which led the
strike while mediation was ongoing, and union. These flyers categorically
notwithstanding the letter-advisories of declared: Ipaalala nyo sa management na
NCMB warning it of its lack of notice of hindi iniaatras ang ating Notice of Strike
strike. In the case of NUWHRAIN v. (NOS) at anumang oras ay pwede nating
[38]
[35]
NLRC, where the petitioner-union therein muling itirik ang picket line. These flyers
were not denied by respondent, and were
112
| Labor Relations-2A
dated June 19, 1994, just a day after the to and respected if their ends have to be
[41]
unions manifestation with the NLRC that achieved.
there existed no threat of commission of
prohibited activities. (o) As to petitioners allegation of violation of the
no-strike provision in the CBA, jurisprudence
(l) Moreover, it bears stressing that Article has enunciated that such clauses only bar
[39]
264(a) of the Labor Code explicitly states strikes which are economic in nature, but not
that a declaration of strike without first strikes grounded on unfair labor
[42]
having filed the required notice is a practices. The notices filed in the case at
prohibited activity, which may be prevented bar alleged unfair labor practices, the initial
through an injunction in accordance with determination of which would entail fact-
Article 254. Clearly, public respondent finding that is best left for the labor arbiters.
should have granted the injunctive relief to Nevertheless, our finding herein of the
prevent the grave damage brought about by invalidity of the notices of strike dispenses
the unlawful strike. with the need to discuss this issue.
(m) Also noteworthy is public respondents (p) We cannot sanction the respondent-unions
disregard of petitioners argument pointing brazen disregard of legal requirements
out the unions failure to observe the CBA imposed purposely to carry out the state
provisions on grievance and arbitration. In policy of promoting voluntary modes of
the case of San Miguel Corp. v. settling disputes. The states commitment
[40]
NLRC, we ruled that the union therein to enforce mutual compliance therewith to
violated the mandatory provisions of the foster industrial peace is affirmed by no less
[43]
CBA when it filed a notice of strike without than our Constitution. Trade unionism and
availing of the remedies prescribed therein. strikes are legitimate weapons of labor
Thus we held: granted by our statutes. But misuse of these
instruments can be the subject of judicial
x x x For failing to exhaust all steps in the intervention to forestall grave injury to a
[44]
grievance machinery and arbitration business enterprise.
proceedings provided in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the notice of strike (q) WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
should have been dismissed by the NLRC and GRANTED. The decision and resolution of
private respondent union ordered to proceed the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468-94
with the grievance and arbitration proceedings. are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner
In the case of Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. and private respondent are hereby directed
Can Co., the court declared as illegal the strike to submit the issues raised in the dismissed
staged by the union for not complying with the notices of strike to grievance procedure and
grievance procedure provided in the collective proceed with arbitration proceedings as
bargaining agreement. . . (Citations omitted) prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No
pronouncement as to costs.
(n) As in the abovecited case, petitioner herein
evinced its willingness to negotiate with the
union by seeking for an order from the
NLRC to compel observance of the
grievance and arbitration proceedings.
Respondent however resorted to force
without exhausting all available means
within its reach. Such infringement of the
aforecited CBA provisions constitutes further
justification for the issuance of an injunction
against the strike. As we said long ago:
Strikes held in violation of the terms
contained in a collective bargaining
agreement are illegal especially when they
provide for conclusive arbitration clauses.
These agreements must be strictly adhered
113
| Labor Relations-2A
114
| Labor Relations-2A
115
| Labor Relations-2A
resolution of the local union imposing the company informing the latter of its
P50.00 fine. The union officers protested designation of a certain Alfredo Kalingking
such action by the Federation. The as local union president and "disauthorizing"
Federation wrote respondent company a the incumbent union officers from
letter advising the latter not to deduct the representing the employees. Petitioner
fifty-peso fine from the salaries of the union union officers received identical letters from
members requesting that:. . . any and all the administrator requiring them to explain
future representations by MSMG affecting a within 72 hours why they should not be
number of members be first cleared from removed from their office and expelled from
the federation before corresponding action union membership. The officers were
by the Company thereafter expelled from ULGWP. The
federation advised respondent company of
Respondent company sent a reply to the expulsion of the 30 union officers and
petitioner union's request in a letter, stating demanded their separation from
that it cannot deduct fines from the employment pursuant to the Union Security
employees' salary without going against Clause in their collective bargaining
certain laws. The company suggested that agreement.
the union refer the matter to the proper
government office for resolution in order to Thereafter, the Federation filed a Notice of
avoid placing the company in the middle of Strike with the National Conciliation and
the issue. The imposition of P50.00 fine Mediation Board to compel the company to
became the subject of bitter disagreement effect the immediate termination of the
between the Federation and the local union expelled union officers. Under the pressure
culminating in the latter's declaration of of a threatened strike, respondent company
general autonomy from the former through terminated the 30 union officers from
Resolution No. 10 passed by the local employment, serving them identical copies
executive board and ratified by the general of the termination letter. The expelled union
membership officers assigned in the first shift were
physically or bodily brought out of the
In retaliation, the national federation asked company premises by the company's
respondent company to stop the remittance security guards. Likewise, those assigned to
of the local union's share in the education the second shift were not allowed to report
funds effective August 1988. This was for work. This provoked some of the
objected to by the local union which members of the local union to demonstrate
demanded that the education fund be their protest for the dismissal of the said
remitted to it in full. union officers. Some union members left
their work posts and walked out of the
The company was thus constrained to file a company premises. The Federation, having
Complaint for Interpleader with a Petition for achieved its objective, withdrew the Notice
Declaratory Relief with the Med-Arbitration of Strike filed with the NCMB. Petitioners
Branch of the Department of Labor and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB,
Employment where it was resolved in favor DOLE, Manila, docketed as Case No.
of the company. The resolution was later NCMB-NCR-NS-03-216-89, alleging the
modified. following grounds for the strike:
Officials of ULGWP called a Special (a) Discrimination
National Executive Board Meeting at
Nasipit, Agusan del Norte where a (b) Interference in union activities
Resolution was passed placing the MSMG
under trusteeship and appointing (c) Mass dismissal of union officers and
respondent Cesar Clarete as administrator. shop stewards
The administrator wrote the respondent
116
| Labor Relations-2A
(d) Threats, coercion and intimidation Parañaque expired and were not renewed.
Upon demand of the owners of the
(e) Union busting premises, the company was compelled to
vacate its office and factory.
A strike vote referendum was conducted
and out of 2, 103 union members who cast Thereafter, the company transferred its
their votes, 2,086 members voted to declare administration and account/client servicing
a strike. The thirty (30) dismissed union department at AFP-RSBS Industrial Park in
officers filed an urgent petition with the Taguig, Metro Manila. For failure to find a
Office of the Secretary of the Department of suitable place in Metro Manila for relocation
Labor and Employment praying for the of its factory and manufacturing operations,
suspension of the effects of their termination the company was constrained to move the
from employment. However, the petition said departments to Tacloban, Leyte. The
was dismissed by then Secretary Franklin complaint for unfair labor practice was
Drilon. assigned to Labor Arbiter Manuel Asuncion
but was thereafter reassigned to Labor
A total of 78 union shop stewards were Arbiter Cresencio Ramos when respondents
placed under preventive suspension by moved to inhibit him from acting on the
respondent company. This prompted the case. Finding the termination to be valid in
union members to again stage a walk-out compliance with the union security clause of
and resulted in the official declaration of the collective bargaining agreement, Labor
strike. The strike was attended with Arbiter Cresencio Ramos dismissed the
violence, force and intimidation on both complaint. The First Division affirmed the
sides resulting to physical injuries to several Labor Arbiter’s disposition.
employees, both striking and non-striking,
and damage to company properties. Isssue:
The employees who participated in the WON the strike was illegal.
strike and allegedly figured in the violent
incident were placed under preventive Held:
suspension by respondent company. The
company also sent return-to-work notices to This ruling of the NLRC is erroneous
the home addresses of the striking
employees thrice successively, on March With regard to the issue of the legality or
27, April 8 and April 31, 1989, respectively. illegality of the strike, the Labor Arbiter held
However, respondent company admitted that the strike was illegal for the following
that only 261 employees were eventually reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union
accepted back to work. Those who did not dispute which cannot properly be the
respond to the return-to-work notice were subject of a strike, the right to strike being
sent termination letters . limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks
and unfair labor practice (2) it was made in
Petitioners filed a complaint charging private violation of the "no strike, no lock-out"
respondents of unfair labor practice which clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended
consists of union busting, illegal dismissal, with violence, force and intimidation upon
illegal suspension, interference in union the persons of the company officials, other
activities, discrimination, threats, employees reporting for work and third
intimidation, coercion, violence, and persons having legitimate business with the
oppression. company, resulting to serious physical
injuries to several employees and damage
After the filing of the complaint, the lease to company property.
contracts on the respondent company's
office and factory at Merville Subdivision,
117
| Labor Relations-2A
118
| Labor Relations-2A
The SOLE issued another certification of strike of September 27 had already been
order. taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he
issued a status quo ante bellum order
When GBH implemented its retrenchment enjoining the union from staging a strike.
program, the union filed a notice of strike on Thus, when the union went on strike despite
November 16, 1900 and staged a picket on the SOLE order, it violated of Article 264 of
the same day. The SOLE thus issued a the LC.
Cease and Desist order and ordered the
reinstatement of some of the employees. The union further claims that it went on
GBH subsequently filed a complaint for strike because of its belief in good faith that
illegal strike against the union with the the company was committing ULP. Still, the
NLRC. The LA found in favor of GBH, Court held that a claim of good faith is not a
finding that the union was guilty of illegal valid excuse to dispense with the procedural
strike and declaring the union officers to steps for lawful strike.
have forfeited their employment. The union
appealed to the NLRC, which later affirmed
the Labor Arbiter’s decision. However, on
certiorari, the CA reversed. Hence, this
petition.
119
| Labor Relations-2A
85_BARRIETA
The University filed a Petition to Declare
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. CA Illegal Strike and Loss of Employment
G.R. NO. 169632, March 28, 2006 Status at NLRC. SOLE DISMISSED the
Garcia, J.: petition to declare the strike illegal for want
of legal and factual basis. The University
FACTS thereafter appeal the decision with the CA.
On July 27, 2000, the University and its
Union entered into a 5-year CBA. The CBA CA DECLARED the strike held on
contained a "no strike, no lockout" clause September 19, 2003 by the Union as
and a grievance machinery procedure to ILLEGAL and ordered that the union
resolve management-labor disputes, officers are therefore deemed to have lost
including a voluntary arbitration mechanism their employment status.
should the grievance committee fail to
satisfactorily settle such disputes. ISSUE
Whether or not the strike was illegal.
During the negotiations, the parties could
not agree on the manner of computing the HELD
Tuition Incremental Proceeds (TIP), thus the YES. To be sure, the Union was not able to
need to undergo preventive mediation sufficiently dispute the truth of the narration
proceedings before the National Conciliation of facts contained in the sheriff's report.
and Mediation Board (NCMB), Iloilo City. Hence, it was not unreasonable for the CA
to conclude that there was a deliberate
The impasse respecting the computation of intent by the Union and its officers to
TIP was not resolved. This development disregard the AJO and proceed with their
prompted the Union to declare a bargaining strike, which, by their act of disregarding
deadlock grounded on the parties' failure to said AJO made said strike illegal. The AJO
arrive at a mutually acceptable position on was issued by the SOLE pursuant to Article
the manner of computing the seventy 263(g) of the Labor Code, which reads:
percent (70%) of the net TIP to be allotted
for salary and other benefits for SY2003- Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and
2004 and SY2004-2005. lockouts. - ... (g) When, in his opinion,
there exists a labor dispute causing or likely
Thereafter, the Union filed a Notice of Strike to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
before the NCMB. The parties then made a indispensable to the national interest, the
joint request for the SOLE to assume Secretary of Labor and Employment may
jurisdiction over the dispute. On September assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
19, 2003, the Union staged a strike. At decide it or certify the same to the
approximately 8:45 a.m., the sheriffs posted Commission for compulsory arbitration.
copies of the AJO at the main gate of San Such assumption or certification shall have
Agustin University, at the main entrance of the effect of automatically enjoining the
its buildings and at the Union's office inside intended or impending strike or lockout as
the campus. At 9:20 a.m., the sheriffs specified in the assumption or certification
served the AJO on the University. order. If one has already taken place at the
Notwithstanding the sheriffs' advice as to time of assumption or certification, all
the legal implication of the Union's refusal to striking or locked out employees shall
be served with the AJO, the Union went immediately return to work and the
ahead with the strike. At around 5:25 p.m., employer shall immediately resume
the Union president arrived at the operations and readmit all workers under
respondent University's premises and the same terms and conditions prevailing
received the AJO from the sheriffs. before the strike or lockout. The Secretary
120
| Labor Relations-2A
of Labor and Employment or the 263(g) of the Labor Code, supra, is explicit
Commission may seek the assistance of law that if a strike has already taken place at
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance the time of assumption of jurisdiction or
with this provision as well as with such certification, all striking or locked out
orders as he may issue to enforce the employees shall immediately return to work
same. (Emphasis supplied). and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under
Conclusively, when the SOLE assumes the same terms and conditions prevailing
jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an before the strike or lock-out. This is
industry indispensable to national interest or compounded further by this Court's rulings
certifies the same to the NLRC for which have never interpreted the phrase
compulsory arbitration, such assumption or "immediately return to work" found in Article
certification shall have the effect of 263(g) to mean "within twenty four (24)
automatically enjoining the intended or hours." On the other hand, the tenor of
impending strike or lockout. Moreover, if these ponencias indicates an almost
one had already taken place, all striking instantaneous or automatic compliance for a
workers shall immediately return to work striker to return to work once an AJO has
and the employer shall immediately resume been duly served.
operations and readmit all workers under
the same terms and conditions prevailing Thus, we see no reversible error in the CA's
before the strike or lockout. In Trans-Asia finding that the strike of September 19,
Shipping Lines, Inc., et al. vs. CA, et al., the 2003 was illegal. Consequently, the Union
Court declared that when the Secretary officers were deemed to have lost their
exercises these powers, he is granted great employment status for having knowingly
breadth of discretion in order to find a participated in said illegal act.
solution to a labor dispute. The most
obvious of these powers is the automatic
enjoining of an impending strike or lockout
or the lifting thereof if one has already taken
place. Assumption of jurisdiction over a
labor dispute, or the certification of the
same to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration, always co-exists with an order
for workers to return to work immediately
and for employers to readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout.
121
| Labor Relations-2A
86_BATALLER YES.
It is clear from Art. 263(g) that the moment
TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMP the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction
LOYEES UNION-FFW vs. CA, DOLE- over a labor dispute in an industry
SEC, and TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICROE indispensable to national interest, such
LECTRONICS, (PHILS.), INC. assumption shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or
G.R. Nos. 143013-14, 18 December 2000 impending strike. It was not even necessary
for the Secretary of Labor to issue another
FACTS: order directing them to return to work. The
mere issuance of an assumption order by
The labor dispute started when the the Secretary of Labor automatically carries
Company and the Union reached a with it a return-to-work order, even if the
deadlock in their negotiations for a new directive to return to work is not expressly
collective bargaining agreement. The Union stated in the assumption order. However,
filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. The petitioners refused to acknowledge this
Acting DOLE Secretary intervened and directive of the Secretary of Labor thereby
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and necessitating the issuance of another order
thus enjoined any strike or lockout, whether expressly directing the striking workers to
actual or intended, between the parties. cease and desist from their actual strike,
and to immediately return to work but which
Despite the assumption Order, the Union directive the herein petitioners opted to
struck. And also on despite the Notice of the ignore.
Return-to-Work Order, still some of the
striking workers refused to heed the order In this connection, Article 264 provides
and continued with their picket. The prohibited activities. One of which is that
Company then issued letters of termination “No strike or lock out shall be declared after
for cause to the workers who did not report the assumption of jurisdiction by the
back to work despite the Notice of President or the Secretary or after
Assumption and Return-to-Work Orders certification or submission of the dispute to
issued by the Acting DOLE-Sec. However, compulsory or voluntary arbitration”. The
the Acting DOLE Secretary issued another rationale of this prohibition is that once
Order directing the Company to reinstate all jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been
striking workers “except the Union Officers, properly acquired by the competent
shop stewards, and those with pending authority, that jurisdiction should not be
criminal charges, x x x” while the resolution interfered with by the application of the
of the legality of the strike was pending. The coercive processes of a strike. We have
strike was later declared illegal by the Sec. held in a number of cases that defiance to
the assumption and return-to-work orders of
the Secretary of Labor after he has
ISSUE: assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for
loss of the employment status of any
Whether or not defiance to the assumption striking union officer or member.
and return-to-work orders of the Secretary
of Labor after assumption of jurisdiction is a
valid ground to terminate the employment of
striking members
HELD:
122
| Labor Relations-2A
123
| Labor Relations-2A
124
| Labor Relations-2A
125
| Labor Relations-2A
126
| Labor Relations-2A
127
| Labor Relations-2A
90_DE LA ROSA-REID illegal strike. The Union filed with the NCMB
PASINTABI: Mahaba po ang susunod na a second Notice of Strike on the ground of
kaso. Mahabang pasensya at patnubay ng unfair labor practice and violation of Article
Maykapal ay kailangan. 248(a) of the Labor Code on illegal lockout.
128
| Labor Relations-2A
mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the crop their hair not only violated the Hotels
seven-day strike ban, as the strike occurred Grooming Standards but also violated the
only 29 days after the submission of the Unions duty and responsibility to bargain in
notice of strike on December 20, 2001 and good faith. By shaving their heads and
only four days after the submission of the cropping their hair, the Union officers and
strike vote on January 14, 2002. The NLRC members violated then Section 6, Rule XIII
also ruled that even if the Union had of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the
complied with the temporal requirements Labor Code.
mandated by law, the strike would
nonetheless be declared illegal because it Fourth, the Union failed to observe the
was attended by illegal acts committed by mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the
the Union officers and members. seven-day strike ban before it conducted
the strike on January 18, 2002. The NLRC
ISSUE: Whether or not the union is liable correctly held that the Union failed to
for illegal strike observe the mandatory periods before
conducting or holding a strike. Records
HELD: Yes. First, the Unions violation of the reveal that the Union filed its Notice of
Hotels Grooming Standards was clearly a Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock
deliberate and concerted action to on December 20, 2001. The 30-day cooling-
undermine the authority of and to off period should have been until January
embarrass the Hotel and was, therefore, not 19, 2002. On top of that, the strike vote was
a protected action. In view of the Unions held on January 14, 2002 and was
collaborative effort to violate the Hotels submitted to the NCMB only on January 18,
Grooming Standards, it succeeded in 2002; therefore, the 7-day strike ban should
forcing the Hotel to choose between have prevented them from holding a strike
allowing its inappropriately hair styled until January 25, 2002. The concerted
employees to continue working, to the action committed by the Union on January
detriment of its reputation, or to refuse them 18, 2002 which resulted in the disruption of
work, even if it had to cease operations in the Hotels operations clearly violated the
affected departments or service units, which above-stated mandatory periods.
in either way would disrupt the operations of
the Hotel. This Court is of the opinion, Last, the Union committed illegal acts in the
therefore, that the act of the Union was not conduct of its strike. The NLRC ruled that
merely an expression of their grievance or the strike was illegal since, as shown by the
displeasure but, indeed, a calibrated and pictures1[21] presented by the Hotel, the
calculated act designed to inflict serious Union officers and members formed human
damage to the Hotels finances or its barricades and obstructed the driveway of
reputation. Thus, we hold that the Unions the Hotel. There is no merit in the Unions
concerted violation of the Hotels Grooming argument that it was not its members but
Standards which resulted in the temporary the Hotels security guards and the police
cessation and disruption of the Hotels officers who blocked the driveway, as it can
operations is an unprotected act and should be seen that the guards and/or police
be considered as an illegal strike. officers were just trying to secure the
entrance to the Hotel. The pictures clearly
Second, the Unions concerted action which demonstrate the tense and highly explosive
disrupted the Hotels operations clearly situation brought about by the strikers
violated the CBAs No Strike, No Lockout presence in the Hotels driveway.
provision.
129
| Labor Relations-2A
130
| Labor Relations-2A
131
| Labor Relations-2A
132
| Labor Relations-2A
133
| Labor Relations-2A
At a conciliation conference held Held: 1.) The Strike was illegal having
at the NCMB-NCR office, the found that PEU's officers and members
parties agreed to consolidate the have committed illegal acts during the
two (2) Notices of Strike filed by strike.
the union and to maintain the 2.) Those acts [enumerated] do
status quo during the pendency not constitute unfair labor practices
of the proceedings under Article 248 of the Labor Code
o While the union and the Ratio:
company officers and 1.) On illegal strike:
representatives were Philcom is engaged in a vital
meeting, the remaining industry (in this case, Philcom is
union officers and engaged with the communication
members staged a strike industry) protected by
at the company premises. Presidential Decree No. 823 (PD
The company immediately filed a 823), as amended by Presidential
petition for the Secretary of Labor Decree No. 849, from strikes and
and Employment to assume lockouts.
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. o the striking employees
o Acting Labor Secretary violated the no-strike
Trajano: enjoining any policy of the State in
strike or lockout, whether regard to vital industries
threatened or actual, The Secretary had already
directing the parties to assumed jurisdiction over the
cease and desist from dispute. Despite the issuance of
committing any act that the return-to-work orders dated
may exacerbate the 19 November and 28 November
situation/ 1997, the striking employees
Secretary of Labor: The Union's failed to return to work and
Manifestation/Motion to Strike continued with their strike.
Out Portions of and Attachments o A return-to-work order is
in Philcom's Position Paper is immediately effective and
hereby denied for lack of merit. executory despite the filing
The Union's charges of unfair labor of a motion for
practice against the Company are reconsideration. It must be
hereby dismissed. strictly complied with even
CA: Violations of CBAs, except during the pendency of
those gross in character, are any petition questioning its
mere grievances resolvable validity.
through the appropriate PEU staged the strike in utter
grievance machinery or voluntary disregard of the grievance
arbitration as provided in the procedure established in the
CBAs CBA.
Issue/s: 1.) Was there an illegal strike? o A strike declared on the
2.) Was there unfair labor basis of grievances which
practice? have not been submitted
to the grievance
134
| Labor Relations-2A
135
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
W/N the grant by the management of profit-
sharing benefits to its employees who are
non-union members is discriminatory
against the union members which amounts
to ULP.
RULING:
No. There can be no discrimination
committed by the employer as the situation
of the union employees is different from the
non union employees. Discrimination per se
is not unlawful. There can be no
discrimination where employees concerned
are not similarly situated.
136
| Labor Relations-2A
137
| Labor Relations-2A
138
| Labor Relations-2A
139
| Labor Relations-2A
140
| Labor Relations-2A
141
| Labor Relations-2A
ISSUE:
WON the company is guilty of unfair
labor practice in dismissing petitioner
employees merely upon the labor
142
| Labor Relations-2A
143
| Labor Relations-2A
144