DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMANvs. GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC. [G.R. No. 162994.  September 17, 2004]Facts:Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.Issue:Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Glaxo’s  policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution;Held:

Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.

The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company.  In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.

That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No less than the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.[20] Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers.  The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.[21]Tabigue vs International Copra Export CorporationGR. No. 183335 December 23, 2009

Facts:Before the parties could finally meet for voluntary arbitration due to unsettled grievances, a letter from the president of the INTERCO Employees/Laborers’ Union (the union), addressed to the respondent company stated that petitioners “are not duly authorized by [the] board or the officers

to represent the union hence all actions, representations or agreements made by the petitioners with the management will not be honored or recognized by the union.”  

Held:Respecting petitioners’ thesis that unsettled grievances should be referred to voluntary arbitration as called for in the CBA, petitioners have not, however, been duly authorized to represent the union.  Pursuant to Article 260 of the Labor Code, the parties to a CBA shall name or designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and if the grievance is unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to the voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by parties to a CBA.     Consequently   only disputes involving the union   and the company   shall be referred to the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. Petitioners invoke the first paragraph of Article 255 of the Labor Code which states: “The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.     However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer .” The Court, however, is not persuaded by this argument.  The right of any employee or group of employees to, at any time, present grievances   to the employer   does not imply the right to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.  

Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL vs Waterfront Insular Hotel DavaoGR. No. 174040-41, September 22, 2010

Facts: Respondent Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao suspend its operations for a period of six months due to severe and serious business losses sending a notice to Dole assuring that if the company could not resume its operations within the six-month period, the company would pay the affected employees all the benefits legally due to them. After series of negotiations, respondent and DIHFEU-NFL,  signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) wherein respondent agreed to re-open the hotel subject to certain concessions offered by DIHFEU-NFL in its Manifesto (downsizing its manpower structure to 100 rank-and-file employees and adopting a new pay scale). After the respondent resumed business operations, local officers of the National Federation of Labor (NFL), filed a Notice of Mediation before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) raising the issue “Diminution of wages and other benefits through unlawful Memorandum of Agreement.” The NCMB called NFL and respondent to a conference to explore the possibility of settling the conflict. In the said conference, respondent and petitioner Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL (IHEU-NFL) signed a Submission Agreement.  Issue: Whether or not the individual members of the local union (IHEU-NFL), being an affiliate of DIHFEU-NFL, have the requisite standing to question the MOA before the NCMB?

 

Held: A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their agent.

Even granting that petitioner Union was affiliated with NFL, still the relationship between that of the local union and the labor federation or national union with which the former was affiliated is generally understood to be that of agency, where the local is the principal and the federation the agency. Being merely an agent of the local union, NFL should have presented its authority to file the Notice of Mediation.

As provided under the NCMB Manual of Procedures, only a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative and an employer may file a notice of mediation, declare a strike or lockout or request preventive mediation. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), on the other, recognizes that DIHFEU-NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative of all permanent employees. The inclusion of the word “NFL” after the name of the local union merely stresses that the local union is NFL's affiliate. It does not, however, mean that the local union cannot stand on its own. The local union owes its creation and continued existence to the will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs NLRCGR. No. 85985 August 13,1993

Facts:The Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. Thus, the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) contending that PAL, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and prejudicial to the rights of the employees. It prayed that implementation of the Code be held in abeyance and that PAL should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA. PAL filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescribe rules and regulations regarding employess' conduct in carrying out their duties and functions.

Issue: Whether or not the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees?

Held:

There is no dispute that ADOPTION of rules of conduct or discipline is a prerogative of management and is imperative and essential. So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them. However, management can no longer exclude labor in the DELIBERATION and FORMULATION of rules and regulations that will affect them.

The Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and loss of employment — a property right! It is time that management realizes that to attain effectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, our Constitution has recognized the principle of "shared responsibility" between employers and workers and has likewise recognized the right of workers to participate in "policy and decision-making process affecting their rights"

Nonetheless, whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the absence of full cooperation of the employees. Such cooperation cannot be attained if the employees are restive on account, of their being left out in the determination of cardinal and fundamental matters affecting their employment.

Romero vs PeopleGR No. 171644 November 23, 2011

Facts:Romulo Padlan and Arturo Siapno was convinced by the petitioner to give her certain fees for the processing of their papers for them to leave the country within 1 to 2 weeks for a job placement in Israel. They were able to leave for Israel and was able to secure a job. Unfortunately, both were caught by Israel's immigration police, incarcerated and was eventually deported due to the absence of working visas. Both demanded from petitioner the return of their money, but the latter refused (DOLE) whether petitioner, had any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment finding that petitioner were not authorized to recruit for overseas employment.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner in undertaking