Which of the following is not a part of the four fold test in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship?

The selection and engagement of the employee The ability to pay wages The power of dismissal The power to control the employees conduct ANSWER: In order to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has frequently applied the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees conduct, or the so called control test, which is considered the most important element. (South Davao Development Company vs. Gamo [GR 171814] 2009)

Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative ANSWER: Employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees is an authorized cause of termination under Article 284 of the Labor Code. All other options are just causes under Article 282 (Asian Terminals vs. Sallao [GR 166211] 2008).

This is a kind of employment fixed for a specific undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Project employment Seasonal employment Casual employment Fixed term employment ANSWER: Project employment is where employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. (Leyte Geothermal vs. Philippine National Oil Company [GR 170351] 2011)

Professor Xavier approached Professor Einstein and asked him to reconsider the failing mark that he gave to Sylvester Winkle. Xavier represented himself to be the uncle of Sylvester although he was not, in order to give more weight to his request, and also started a whispering campaign among the faculty members and students who failed in the same subject against the grading system of Einstein. Will this be a valid reason for dismissal? Yes, this is gross and habitual neglect of duty No, the offense is not a just or authorized cause for dismissal Yes, the acts committed equate to serious misconduct No, the acts are excusable ANSWER: Pressure and influence exerted by Professor Xavier on his colleague (Professor Einstein) to change a failing grade to a passing one, as well as his misrepresentation that Sylvester is his nephew (when in truth he is not), constitute serious misconduct, which is a valid ground for dismissing an employee. (Padilla vs. NLRC [GR 114764] 1997, in relation to Article 282 [a], Labor Code)

Which of the following is not a just cause for termination? Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties Employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work Jake Sommers, Security Consultant, went to the office of his Boss Sylvester Winkle and requested that his certification of employment be signed as he needs it for a housing loan. Sylvester refused to sign the certification and receive the letter of request. Jake lost his temper and hurled invectives against his boss.

Assuming that after process of investigation, Jake was dismissed; was the dismissal proper? Yes, the acts constitute willful disobedience which is a just cause Yes, the acts constitutes serious misconduct and warrant the dismissal No, the superior officer is at fault No, while it may constitute serious misconduct, it does not warrant dismissal ANSWER: For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, at least three requisites must concur: (1) it must be serious; (2) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (3) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The act done in this case is not in relation to performance of duty. Even assuming that it constitutes serious misconduct, it does not warrant dismissal for it is natural that the employee be irked by the actions of his superior. Lighter penalties should have been imposed. (Industrial Security Consultancy vs. NLRC [GR 81530] 2006, in relation to Article 282 [a], Labor Code)

The employees assailed conduct must be willful, it must be inexcusable, and the order violated must have been reasonable The employees assailed conduct must be willful, and the order violated must have been reasonable The employees assailed conduct must be willful, it must be habitual, and the order violated must have been reasonable The employees assailed conduct must be willful, and the order violated must not have been reasonable ANSWER: Wilful disobedience of the employers lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee, envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employees assailed conduct must have been wilful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. (Apacible vs. Multimed Industries [GR 178903] 2011, in relation to Article 282 [a], Labor Code)

In the just causes for termination, which of the following is not a requisite of serious misconduct? It must be habitual It must relate to the performance of the employee's duties It must be serious It must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer ANSWER: For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, at least three requisites must concur: (1) it must be serious; (2) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (3) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. (Industrial Security Consultancy vs. NLRC [GR 81530] 2006, in relation to Article 282 [a], Labor Code)

What are the requisites for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence on the employee? The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and the employer has lost all trust in him The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and that relationship have been so strained that its impossible for them to work together The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence The employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and the reason for the loss of confidence was due to fraud committed by the employee ANSWER: The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is

What are the requisites of willful disobedience to constitute a just cause for termination?

not necessary. (Jerusalem vs. Hock [GR 169564] 2011, in relation to Article 282 [c], Labor Code)

This has been defined as quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. Dismissal Resignation Illegal dismissal Constructive discharge ANSWER: Constructive dismissal or constructive discharge has been defined as quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. (Portuguez vs. GSIS Family Bank [GR 169570] 2007)

This is the termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted by management during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation. Redundancy Retrenchment Installation of labor saving device Automation process ANSWER: Retrenchment is the termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and without prejudice to the latter, resorted by management during periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage of materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the introduction of new methods or more efficient machinery, or of automation. (Trendline Employees Association vs. NLRC [GR 112923] 1997, in relation to Article 283, Labor Code)

Which of the following is not a requisite to constitute just cause for terminating an employee on the CBAs Union Security Clause? That the employee to be dismissed is a member of the union The union security clause is applicable The union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA There is sufficient evidence to support the unions decision to expel the employee from the union ANSWER: In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs only to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions decision to expel the employee from the union. These requisites constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the CBAs union security provision. (Alabang Country Club vs. NLRC [GR 170287] 2008) This exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. Retrenchment Installation of labor saving devices Redundancy Termination ANSWER: Redundancy exists when the service capability of the workforce is in excess of what is reasonably needed to meet the demands of the business enterprise. (AMA Computer College vs. Garcia [GR 166703] 2008, in relation to Article 283, Labor Code)

Which of the following is not a requisite for a valid retrenchment? The retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven Written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least 1 month prior to the intended date of retrenchment Payment of separation pay equivalent to 1 month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher Fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be abolished ANSWER: There are three basic requisites for a valid retrenchment to exist, to wit: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least 1 month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. (AMA Computer College vs. Garcia [GR 166703] 2008, in relation to Article 283, Labor Code) He is not entitled to separation pay P12,000 P18,000 P36,000 ANSWER: P36,000 In case of termination due to the installation of laborsaving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one 1 month pay or to at least 1 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher (Article 283, Labor Code). Jake has worked for 3 years, P36,000 is higher than P12,000.

Jake worked at Sharkeys Factory for 3 years and has been earning P12,000 per month. Due to business loss of Sharkeys caused by diminishing clientele; they determined that retrenchment was necessary. Jake was terminated because of the authorized cause of retrenchment. How much separation pay should Jake receive? He is not entitled to separation pay P12,000 P18,000 P36,000 ANSWER: P18,000 In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to 1 month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Since he has worked for 3 years, he is entitled to P6,000 per year of service = P18,000, which is higher than P12,000 (Article 283, Labor Code).

Which of the following is not a fair and reasonable criteria in implementing redundancy? Compensation Less preferred status Efficiency Seniority ANSWER: Among the accepted criteria in implementing a redundancy are: (a) less preferred status, e.g., temporary employee; (b) efficiency; and (c) seniority. (AMA Computer College vs. Garcia [GR 166703] 2008, in relation to Article 283, Labor Code)

Jake worked at Sharkeys for 3 years and has been earning P12,000 per month. Due to the decrease in Sharkeys clientele they determined that there were redundant positions. Jake was terminated because of the authorized cause of redundancy. How much separation pay should Jake receive?

Jake worked at Sharkeys Factory from January 2005 to August 2007 and has been earning P12,000 per month. Due to business loss of Sharkeys caused by diminishing clientele; they determined that retrenchment was necessary. Jake was terminated because of the authorized cause of retrenchment. How much separation pay should Jake receive?

He is not entitled to separation pay P12,000 P36,000 P18,000 ANSWER: P18,000 In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to 1 month pay or at least 1/2 month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least 6 months shall be considered 1 whole year. He is entitled to P6,000 per year of service = P18,000 because he is deemed to have rendered service for 3 years for purposes of computation of separation pay (Article 283, Labor Code).

Sylvester took a sick leave from Sharkeys due to an ailment. A certificate issued by competent public health authority states that the disease can be cured with proper medical attention within 4 months. The employer: May terminate the employee because he is suffering from a disease Shall ask the employee to take a leave of absence and reinstate him upon restoration of his normal health May terminate the employee but will accept him again if he reapplies and there is an available position Shall suspend the employee indefinitely until he is well enough to be able to report for work ANSWER: If the disease or ailment can be cured within 6 months, the employee shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave of absence. The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health (Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, Implementing Rules, Labor Code).

If an employee has an ailment or disease; when may the employer terminate such employee for the authorized cause that the employee has been found to be suffering of such disease? When there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease cannot be cured within 6 months When there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease cannot be cured within 3 months When there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease cannot be cured within 9 months When there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease cannot be cured ANSWER: The employer may be authorized to terminate an employee if there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature of at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of 6 months even with proper medical treatment. (Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, Implementing Rules, Labor Code) What is the procedural due process observed when an employee is terminated due to redundancy? Two written notices, first informing the employee for the reason of the termination, second is informing the employee of the decision to terminate A written notice terminating the employee and opportunity to be heard This is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. Gross neglect of duty Serious misconduct Abandonment Willful disobedience ANSWER: Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. (Agabon vs. NLRC [GR 158693] 2004)

A written notice informing the employee of the grounds for termination and giving reasonable opportunity to explain his side, hearing or opportunity to be heard, and the second written notice of termination A written notice informing the employee and the DOLE 1 month before date of termination ANSWER: In cases of installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking, written notice must be served on the workers and the DOLE at least one 1 month before the intended date thereof (Article 283, Labor Code).

Within what period may dismissed employee question the legality of his dismissal? 4 years from dismissal 1 year from dismissal 3 years from dismissal 5 years from dismissal ANSWER: The action instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as contemplated under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within 4 years. (PLDT vs. Pingol [GR 182622] 2010)

Tony is a waiter at Sharkeys. There are times that he absents himself from work to get some extra work in other establishments. Sharkey dismissed him outright after catching out of work for the 3rd time. What is the effect of the denial of termination without notice? The dismissal is ineffectual and the employer must pay full backwages from the time of termination until it is judicially declared that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause The dismissal may be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for violating employees right to due process by imposing nominal damages The dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee The dismissal is invalid and the employee should be reinstated without loss of any seniority rights and full backwages ANSWER: When an employee is dismissed for just or authorized cause but without the due process requirement of notice and hearing, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for violating employees right to due process by imposing nominal damages. (Agabon vs. NLRC [GR 158693] 2004)

An employee that is dismissed without just or authorized cause is entitled to: Reinstatement Backwages Reinstatement and backwages Reinstatement or backwages ANSWER: An employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. (Golden Ace Builders vs. Talde [GR 187200] 2010, in relation to Article 279, Labor Code)

An employee may terminate the employee-employer relationship without cause, by: Serving a written notice to the Serving a written notice to the Serving a written notice to the Serving a written notice advance employer at least 2 weeks in advance employer at least 1 week in advance employer at least 15 days in advance to the employer at least 1 month in

ANSWER: An employee may terminate without just cause the employeeemployer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least 1 month in advance. (Article 285 [a], Labor Code)

Tony, waiter, was dismissed by Sharkey. Tony filed an action for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be valid, but on appeal, the NLRC found that Tony was dismissed without cause and ordered reinstatement. Sharkey appealed to the CA, failing and refusing to reinstate Tony pending appeal, either actual or thru payroll. CA affirmed the NLRC but it was reversed by the Supreme Court finding that there was valid cause for dismissal. Can Tony collect the salary which should have been paid from the time NLRC ordered reinstatement until it was reversed by the Supreme Court? No, the dismissal was valid and the reinstatement was improper and thus not eligible to any payment of wage Yes, order reinstatement and payment of wage is obligatory upon the employer until reversal of reinstatement order No, backwages does not accrue when there is a valid dismissal Yes, he should have been entitled to payroll reinstatement because of the failure to reinstate, but it would be useless because payment will have to be refunded upon the reversal of the decision ANSWER: Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court or tribunal. (ISLRIZ Trading vs. Capada [GR 168501] 2011, in relation to Article 223, Labor Code)

No, employee is not required to refund wages received from reinstatement to reversal of such order Yes, he has not worked for the wages he received and not returning the same would amount to unjust enrichment No, it shall be deducted from accrued benefits which the employee may be entitled to receive Yes, since he was validly dismiss and the order of reinstatement is reversed, employee is not entitled to the amount received unless there was actual reinstatement ANSWER: The Supreme Court has reverted back to the old doctrine by playing down the stray posture in Genuino requiring the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries in case a final decision upholds the validity of the dismissal, the Court realigns the proper course of the prevailing doctrine on reinstatement pending appeal vis--vis the effect of a reversal on appeal. The employee ordered reinstatement is entitled to such reinstatement pending appeal even if it is later reversed, the salary received shall not be refunded. Social(ISLRIZ Trading vs. Capada [GR 168501] 2011, citing Garcia vs. PAL [GR 164856] 2009, in relation to Article 223, Labor Code) The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Tony is 63 years old and has worked for Sharkeys for 5 years, receiving a monthly salary of P10,000; assuming that Sharkeys does not have a retirement benefit plan for its employees. Is he entitled to a retirement pay? No, since there is no retirement plan maintained by the employer, there will be no retirement pay No, to be entitled to a retirement pay, an employee must have rendered at least 15 years of service to the employer prior to retirement Yes, employee is entitled to at least 1 month of salary for every year of service Yes, employee is entitled to at least 1/2 month of salary for every year of service ANSWER: In the absence of any retirement plan or retirement benefit, an employee reaching the age of retirement and have rendered at least 5 years of service to the employer shall be entitled to retirement pay equal to at least 1/2 month or salary for every year of service (Section 1, RA 7641).

Tony, waiter was dismissed by Sharkey from his bar. Tony filed an action for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be valid, but on appeal, the NLRC found that Tony was dismissed without cause and ordered reinstatement. Sharkey appealed to the CA and reinstated Tony only in payroll. CA affirmed the NLRC but it was reversed by the Supreme Court finding that there was valid cause for dismissal. Should Tony refund to Sharkey the wages he received during reinstatement?

This is any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Strike Closed shop Picket Lockout ANSWER: "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute (Article 212 [p], Labor Code).

ANSWER: An appropriate bargaining unit is defined as a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. (San Miguel vs. san Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Union [GR 146206] 2011)

In unfair labor practice, this is an employment agreement whereby a worker promises not to join a Labor Union or promises to resign from a union if he or she is already a member. Closed Shop Yellow dog contract Runaway shop Company unionism ANSWER: A Yellow Dog Contract is an employment agreement whereby a worker promises not to join a Labor Union or promises to resign from a union if he or she is already a member. (2005, Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd Edition, Volume 10, p. 446, Thompson Gale)

Who shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-union and inter-union dispute? Labor Arbiter National Labor Relations Commission Bureau of Labor Relations National Conciliation and Mediation Board ANSWER: The Bureau of Labor Relations has original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-union and inter-union disputes (Article 226, Labor Code)

In unfair labor practice, this is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. Closed shop Yellow dog contract Runaway shop Blue sky bargaining ANSWER: A "runaway shop" in this sense, is a relocation motivated by antiunion animus rather than for business reasons. (Complex Electronics Employees Association vs. NLRC [GR 121315] 1999)

This is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. Bargaining unit Labor union Labor organization Bargaining representative

In collective bargaining, this is making unrealistic and unreasonable demands in negotiations by either or both labor and management, where neither concedes anything and demands the impossible. Surface bargaining Blue sky bargaining Yellow dog contract Individual bargaining ANSWER: Blue sky bargaining is making unrealistic and unreasonable demands in negotiations by either or both labor and management, where neither concedes anything and demands the impossible. (Footnote #27, Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Secretary of Labor [GR 114974] 2004)

Closed shop Runaway shop Yellow dog contract Company unionism ANSWER: A 'closed shop' may be defined as an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes and for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part. (Findlay Miller Timber Company vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union [GR L-18222] 1962)

Sharkeys entered into a CBA with the Dreams Union. Assuming that the employer has grossly violate the grievance machinery provisions of the CBA, would this constituted unfair labor practices? In collective bargaining, this is going through the motions of negotiating, without any legal intent to reach an agreement. Blue sky bargaining Yellow dog contract Individual bargaining Surface bargaining ANSWER: Surface bargaining is defined as "going through the motions of negotiating" without any legal intent to reach an agreement. (Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs. Secretary of Labor [GR 114974] 2004) Yes, gross violation of the CBA provision is a form of unfair labor practice No, violation of the grievance machinery provision of the CBA is not a gross violation of the agreement and is not an unfair labor practice Yes, grievance machinery being one of the pertinent provisions of the CBA results to unfair labor practice when grossly violated No, violation of the CBA provisions does not result in unfair labor practice ANSWER: Although Article 248 [i] include violation of the CBA as one of the unfair labor practice when such violation is gross, Article 261 qualifies it by stating that gross violation of the CBA shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. (San Migule Foods vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union [GR 168569] 2007)

This is an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise of or of which the employees in interest are a part.

unless he or she is, becomes and for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised

Dreams Union, the bargaining representative at Sharkeys Corporation, having majority status and showing majority representation demanded Sharkeys to collectively bargain sending them a copy of the proposed CBA. Sharkeys did not respond

despite repeated demands. The issue was brought to the Bureau of Labor Relations, which latter certified the same to the NLRC for failure of the conciliation proceedings. Sharkeys, through different reasons, was able to postpone the NLRC proceedings for several times until the last motion for postponement was denied. NLRC issued a decision finding the CBA proposal reasonable and imposed the same upon the employee. Was NLRC correct? No, NLRC does not have the authority to impose the provisions of the CBA without regard to the position of the employer No, a collective bargaining agreement is not valid when there is no consent from either the union or the employer Yes, NLRC is authorized to determine if the terms of the CBA are reasonable and may declare it to govern the relationship of the parties Yes, the CBA does not need the consent of the employer in order to govern its relationship with the union ANSWER: This is a form of unfair labor practice, because the employer refuses to negotiate the terms of the CBA. The instant case being a certified one, it must be resolved by the NLRC pursuant to the mandate of P.D. 873, as amended, which authorizes the said body to determine the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of employment embodied in any Collective Bargaining Agreement. (Kiok Loy vs. NLRC [GR 54334] 1986)

What shall be the term for a Collective bargaining Agreement, for the representation aspect? 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years ANSWER: Any Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of 5 years (Article 253-A, Labor Code).

Assuming that the NLRC issued a valid injunction involving labor dispute, what is the duration of such order of injunction? 20 days 15 days 30 days 10 days ANSWER: Such a temporary restraining order issued by the NLRC shall be effective for no longer than 20 days and shall become void at the expiration of said 20 days (Section 218 [e], Labor Code).

This is a bargaining tactic in which the employer researches the probable outcome of collective bargaining and uses the information to make a firm settlement offer to a union on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, so there is no real negotiation. Blue sky bargaining Surface bargaining Shifting positions Boulwarism ANSWER: Boulwarism - a bargaining tactic in which the employer researches the probable outcome of collective bargaining and uses the information to make a firm settlement offer to a union on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, so there is no real negotiation. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 8 th Edition, p. 197, West Publishing 2004) This is a form of unfair labor practice.

To have a valid certification election, what percentage of the eligible voters in a bargaining unit must have cast their votes? At least 25% of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes At least majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes At least 50% of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes At least 2/3 of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes ANSWER: To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes (Section 256, Labor Code).

The Med-Arbiter shall automatically order a certification election by secret ballot when the verified petition filed within 60 days before the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, when: The verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit The verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 50% of all the employees in the bargaining unit The verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 30% of all the employees in the bargaining unit The verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least majority of all the employees in the bargaining unit ANSWER: When a verified petition questioning the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the DOLE within the 60 day period before the expiration of the CBA, the Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret ballot when the verified petition is supported by the written consent of at least 25% of all the employees in the bargaining unit to ascertain the will of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit (Article 256, Labor Code).

May the employer oppose the petition for certification election filed by a union? Yes, if there is no exclusive bargaining agent representing the bargaining unit No, employer cannot oppose the petition for certification election because he is merely a bystander Yes, if he has been asked to collectively bargain No, unless he has been requested to participate by the union filing the petition ANSWER: Basically, a petition for certification election is principally the concern of the workers. 6 The only exception is where the employer has to file a petition for certification election so that it can bargain collectively as mandated by Article 258 of the Labor Code. Thereafter, the role of the employer in the certification process ceases. It becomes merely a bystander. (Furusawa Rubber Philippines vs. Secretary of Labor [GR 121241] 1997)

When may an employer file a petition for certification election? The employer cannot file a petition for certification election because he is merely a by-stander When the certified bargaining agent have not requested for collective bargaining within 12 months When employer is requested to bargain collectively When there is more than 1 union in the bargaining unit ANSWER: When requested to bargain collectively, an employer may petition the Bureau for an election (Section 258, Labor Code).

Sharkeys corporation has 2 unions, although it is still an unorganized establishment. Dreams Union is registered with the DOLE while Jaws Union is not yet registered with the DOLE. Can Sharkeys voluntarily recognized Dreams Union? No, voluntary recognition may only happen if there is only one labor organization Yes, the number of legitimate labor organizations does not matter as long as it is an unorganized establishment, voluntary recognition may be validly done No, he must file a petition for certification election Yes, there is only one legitimate labor organization, employer may voluntarily recognized the same in an unorganized establishment ANSWER: In unorganized establishments with only one legitimate labor organization, the employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such a union. (Section 1, Rule VI, Implementing Rules of Book V, Labor Code [as amended by D.O. 40 03])

In a Certification Election where Union A got 100 votes, Union B 80 votes, and Union C got 70 votes to be the exclusive bargaining agent. There being a total of 250 valid votes cast, which union shall be the exclusive bargaining agent? Union A There shall be a re-run election There shall be a run-off election There will be no bargaining representative ANSWER: When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes (Article 256, Labor Code).

There will be no bargaining representative There shall be a re-run election There shall be a run-off election ANSWER: Union A because it got more than majority of the valid votes cast. Majority is 126 votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit (Article 256, Labor Code). The majority is 50% + 1. (National Union of Workers in Hotels, etc. vs. Secretary of Labor [GR 181531] 2009)

This provides that the employees cannot revoke the validly executed collective bargaining contract with their employer by the simple expedient of changing their bargaining agent. Non-impairment of contract Substitutionary doctrine Agabon doctrine Surface bargaining ANSWER: Substitutionary doctrine only provides that the employees cannot revoke the validly executed collective bargaining contract with their employer by the simple expedient of changing their bargaining agent.

In a Certification Election where Union A got 120 votes, Union B 80 votes, and Union C got 50 votes to be the exclusive bargaining agent. There being a total of 250 valid votes cast, which union shall be the exclusive bargaining agent? Union A There will be no bargaining representative There shall be a re-run election There shall be a run-off election ANSWER: When an election which provides for three or more choices results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast, a run-off election shall be conducted between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes (Article 256, Labor Code).

In a Certification Election where Union A got 130 votes, Union B 115 votes, and Union C got 5 votes to be the exclusive bargaining agent. There being a total of 250 valid votes cast, which union shall be the exclusive bargaining agent? Union A

In cases of bargaining deadlocks, within how many days should notice of strike be filed before strike? No need for notice of strike, may conduct strike immediately after strike vote has been submitted to the DOLE At least 30 days before the intended date thereof At least 15 days before the intended date thereof At least 10 days before the intended date thereof ANSWER: In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof (Article 263 [c], Labor Code).

At least 15 days before the intended date thereof At least 7 days before the intended date thereof ANSWER: In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members (Article 256 [c], Labor Code). Blue sky bargaining is a form of unfair labor practice.

On August 1, 2011, Dreams Union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the ground of Unfair Labor Practice. On August, 8, 2011, it submitted a strike vote showing that the strike is supported by majority of the union members. When is the soonest time that the strike can be staged? August 31, 2011 September 7, 2011 August 17, 2011 August 24, 2011 ANSWER: In cases of ULP there is only a 15 day cooling off period. When the strike vote is submitted within the cooling off period, the counting of the 7 days starts after the 15 day cooling-off period. Cooling-off and 7 day period must be both complied with. (NSFW vs. Ovejera [GR 59743] 1982, as also cited by NCMB Primer on Strike, Picketing, and Lockout)

In cases of union busting, within how many days should notice of strike be filed before the date of strike? No need for notice of strike, may conduct strike immediately after strike vote has been submitted to the DOLE At least 30 days before the intended date thereof At least 15 days before the intended date thereof At least 10 days before the intended date thereof ANSWER: In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and bylaws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately (Article 263 [c], Labor Code).

This involves merely the marching to and fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. In cases of blue sky bargaining, within how many days should notice of strike be filed before the date of strike? No need for notice of strike, may conduct strike immediately after strike vote has been submitted to the DOLE At least 30 days before the intended date thereof Picketing Strike Lockout Wild-cat strike

ANSWER: Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. (Santa Rosa Coca Cola Plant employees Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers [GR 164302-03] 2007)