1 | P a g e

ULP DIGESTED CASES

ULP and MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES V CIR (Mariano)109 PHIL 900PARAS; October 31, 1960

NATURE Appeal by way of certiorari FACTS- Royal Interocean Lines is a foreign corporation licensed to do businessin the Philippines with head office in Hong Kong. Its branch office inManila employed Ermidia Mariano who had worked since January 5,1932, until her discharge on October 23, 1953.- Mariano and the manager of the Manila Branch (Kamerling) developedstrained relationship that led the former to lodge with the managingdirector in Hong Kong a complaint against Kamerling. The latter, with theapproval of the head office in Hong Kong, dismissed Mariano. She charged Royal Interocean and Kamerling with ULP in the CIR whichdecided in her favor and ordered her reinstatement, with back pay.Royal Interocean filed this appeal.

ISSUEWON Royal Interocean was guilty of ULP in having dismissed Mariano because the latter had filed charges against Kamerling not connectedwith or necessarily arising from union activities HELDNO.Ratio Despite the employees' right to self-organization, the employer still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees, his normalprerogative to hire or dismiss them. The prohibition is directed onlyagainst the use of the right to employ or discharge as an instrument of discrimination, interference or oppression because of one's labor orunion activities.

Reasoning The pertinent legal provision is section 4 (a), subsection 5, of RA 875 which reads: "SEC. 4 Unfair Labor Practice, (a) It shall be Disini unfair labor practice for an employer: . . . (5) To dismiss,discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed charges or for having given or beingabout to give testimony under this Act." - The CIR construed this as including all cases where anemployee is dismissed, discharged or otherwise prejudiced ordiscriminated against by reason of the filing, by the latter with thecourt or elsewhere of any charge against his employer.- From a literal and grammatical point of view, the provision hasto be interpreted in the sense that the charges, the filing of which

is the cause of the dismissal of the employee, must be related tohis right to self- organization, in order to give rise to ULP on thepart of the employer. Under subsection 5 of section 4 (a), the employee's (1) having filed charges or (2) having giventestimony or (3) being about to give testimony, are modified by"under this Act" appearing after the last item. In other words, the three acts must have reference to the employees' right to self organization

and collective bargaining, because the element ofULP is interference in such right. It would be redundant to repeat "under this Act" after each enumeration connected by thedisjunctive conjunction "or".- In this case, Mariano's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the charges filed by her against the petitioner hadnothing to do with or did not arise from her union activities. Disposition The appealed decision is REVERSED. _______________________

MARIANO vs. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES (1961)

FACTS

Petitioner Ermidia A. Mariano was a stenographer-typist and filing clerk of respondent when she was dismissed from work. She sent a letterto the managing directors of the company in HK through its manager in the Philippines, respondent J.V. Kamerling. In the letter, she complained aboutKamerling’s “inconsiderate and untactful attitude” towards the employees under him and the clients of the company. Kamerling adviced petitioner that herletter had been forwarded to the managing directors in HK and that said directors believed that it was impossible to maintain her in the company. Petitioner sought reconsideration of her dismissal from the managing directors in HK but received no answer to any of her 5 letters. The Company finally offered a “compromise settlement” with the petitioner whereby she would be paid a sum equivalent to 6 months salary,provided that she would sign a quitclaim embodying a provision that she would release the company from any liability arising from her employment. Notsatisfied with the compromise, the petitioner filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the company. The CIR rendered judgment holding thecompany guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered them to reinstate petitioner to her former position.

2 | P a g e

The company filed with the SC a petition to review the decision of the CIR. The SC ruled in favor of the company. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether the petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice in dismissing the respondent

Held: NO. Petition Denied.

As the respondent's dismissal has no relation to union activities and the charges filed by her against the petitioner had nothing to do with or did not arise from her union activities, the dismissal did not constitute Unfair Labor Practice. Despite the employees right to self organization, the employer still retains his inherent right to discipline his employees, “his normal prerogrative tohire or dismiss them.” In this case, the court ruled that the dismissal of the employee was unjustified, but the employer did not commit Unfair Labor Practice because the act has no union connection.___________________________________

WISE AND CO. INC. vs. WISE AND CO. INC.EMPLOYEES UNION (1989)

FACTS: The management issued a Memorandum Circular introducing a profit-sharing scheme for its managers and supervisors. Respondent Union wrote to petitioner to ask that the union members be allowed to participate in the profit-sharing program. The management denied therequest on the ground that such participation was not provided in the CBA When renegotiation of the CBA was approaching, the management wrote to the Union that it was willing to consider including the union members in the profits haring scheme provided that the negotiations wouldbe concluded prior to December 1987 Sometime later, the company distributed the profit-sharing benefit not only to the managers and supervisors but also to all rank-and-file employees notcovered by the CBA because they were excluded from the definition of bargaining unit. This caused the respondent Union to file a notice of strike alleging that petitioner was guilty of unfair labor practice because the union were discriminated against in the grant of the profit sharing benefits

Issue: Whether the grant by management of profit sharing benefits to its non-union member employees is discriminatory against its workers who are union members and amounts to ULP?

Held: NO. Petition Granted

There can be no discrimination committed by petitioner as the situation of the union employees are different and distinct from the non-union employees. Discrimination per se is not unlawful. There can be no discriminationwhere the employees concerned are not similarly situated.The grant by petitioner of profit sharing benefits to temployees outside the "bargaining unit" falls under tambit of its managerial prerogative. It appears to habeen done in good faith and without ulterior motive. Moso when as in this case there is a clause in the CBA whethe employees are classified into those who are membeof the union and those who are not. In the case of tunion members, they derive their benefits from the termand conditions of the CBA contract which constitute tlaw between the contracting parties.Both the employand the union members are bound by such agreement._________________________

DABUET vs. ROCHE PHARMACEUTICALS (1987)

FACTS: The petitioners, all officers of the Roche Products Labor Union, wrote the respondent company expressing their grievances and seeking formalconference with management regarding the previous dismissal of the union’s president and vice-president. At the meeting, instead of discussing the problems affecting the labor union and management, the company’s general manager allegedly beratedthe petitioners for writing the said letter and called the letter and the person who prepared it “stupid.” Feeling that he was the one alluded to, since he had prepared the letter, the counsel for the labor union filed a case for “Grave Slander” against thegeneral manager. The charge was based on the affidavit executed by the petitioners. In turn, the company and the manager filed a complaint for “Perjury” against petitioners alleging that their affidavit contained false statements The company construed the execution by petitioners of the affidavit as an “act of breach of trust and confidence.” Hence, they were suspendedand later on dismissed.

Issue: Whether respondent company, in terminating the employment of the petitioners without just and lawful cause, committed an unfair labor practice.

Held: YES. Petition Granted

3 | P a g e

Respondent company had committed unfair labor practice in dismissing the petitioners without just and valid cause. Their dismissal, under the circumstances, amounted to interference with, and restraint or coercionof, the petitioners in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection Breach of trust and confidence, the grounds alleged for petitioners' dismissal, "must not be indiscriminately used as a shield to dismiss an employee arbitrarily.___________________________ULP Even Before Union is Registered Judric Canning Corporation v. Inciong, GR No. L51494,19 August 1982

Under Art. 248 (a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in their exercise of their right to self –organization” is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employers“to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial “or other support to it.” In this particular case, the private respondents weredismissed, or their services were terminated, because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant.____________________

CLLG E.G. Gochangco Workers Union v. NLRC, GR No. L-67158, 30 May 1988We have held that unfair labor practice cases are not, in view of the public interest involved, subject to comprise.

Gochangco Workers Union v. NLRC (1988)Before Batas Blg. 7029 was enacted into law, unfair labor practices were considered administrative offenses, and have been held akin to tort, wherein damages are payable. We therefore not only order herein the reinstatement of the petitioner and the payment of backwages (including cost-of-living allowances) to them, but impose as well moral and exemplary damages. With respect to backwages, we hold the respondent E.G. Gochangco, Inc. liable, in line with the recommendation of the Solicitor General and in accordance with accepted practice, for backwages equivalent to 3 years without qualification ordeduction.

4. COMPROMISEGochangco Workers Union v. NLRC (1988)In any event, we have held that unfair labor practice cases are not, in view of the public interest involved, subject to compromises.

_______________Lockout or Closure Amounting to ULP A lockout, actual or threatened, as a means of dissuading the employees from exercising their rights under the Act is clearly an unfair labor practice. However, to hold an employer who actually or who threatens to lock out his employees guilty of a violation of this Act, the evidence must establish that the purpose thereof was to interfere with the employee’s exercise of their rights.

Sale in Bad Faith The sale of a business enterprise to avoid the legal consequences of an unfair labor practice is necessarily attended with bad faith and both the vendor and the vendee continue to be liable to the affected workers. (Cruz v. PAFLU, G.R. No.L-26519, 29 October 1971)

Where the sale of a business enterprise was attended with bad faith, there is no need to consider the applicability of the rule that labor contracts being in personam are not enforceable against the transferee. The latter is in the positionof tort – feasor, having been a party likewise responsible for the damage inflicted on the members of the aggrieved union and therefore cannot justly escape liability. (Cruz v. PAFLU, G.R. No. L-26519, 29 October 1971) ___________________PollingSpeechInsular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971)The respondents contend that the sending of the letters, exhibits A and B, constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of speech. We do not agree. The said letters were directed to the striking employees individually – by registered special delivery mail at that – without being coursed through the Unions which were representing the employees in the collectivebargaining."The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day and that their jobs were open for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice, as an active interference with the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives." (31 Am. Jur. 563, citing NLRB v. Montgomery Ward & Co.[CA 9th] 133 F2d 676, 146 ALR 1045) Indeed, it is an unfair labor practice for anemployer operating under a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate or to attempt to negotiate with his employees individually in connection with

4 | P a g e

changes in the agreement. And the basis of the prohibition regarding individual bargaining with the strikers is that although the union is on strike, theemployer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative.

Indeed, some such similar actions are illegal as constituting unwarranted acts of interference. Thus, the act of a company president in writing letters to the strikers, urging their return to work on terms inconsistent with their unionmembership, was adjudged as constituting interference with the exercise of his employees' right to collective bargaining (Lighter Publishing, CCA 7th, 133 F2d 621). Moreover, since exhibit A is a letter containing promises of benefits to the employees in order to entice them to return to work, it is not protectedby the free speech provisions of the Constitution (NLRB v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 213 F2d 70). The letters, exhibits A and B, should not be considered by themselves alone but should be read in the light of the preceding and subsequentcircumstances surrounding them. The letters should be interpreted according to the " totality of conduct doctrine,"o whereby the culpability of an employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications, but were to be appraised against thebackground of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. o Under this 'doctrine' expressions of opinion by an employer which, thoughinnocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culpable because of thecircumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particularemployer's labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their connection withan established collateral plan of coercion or interference." (Rothenberg onRelations, p. 374, and cases cited therein.)

EspionageInsular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971)The lower Court justified the constructive dismissal of Ibarra allegedly

because he committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when, as president of the union, he advised the strikers that they could use force and violence tohave a successful picket and that picketing was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings. Even if this were true, the record discloses that the picket line had been generally peaceful, and that incidents happened only when management men made incursions into and tried to break the picket line. At any rate, with orwithout the advice of Ibarra, picketing is inherently explosive.

The picket line being the natural result of the respondents' ULP, Ibarra's misconduct is at most a misdemeanor which is not a bar to reinstatement.Besides, the only evidence presented by the Companies regarding Ibarra's participation in thestrike was the testimony of one Rodolfo Encarnacion, a former member of the board of directors of the petitioner union, who became a "turncoat" and who likewise testified as to the union activities of Atty. Lacsina, Ricardo Villarueland others - another matter which emphasizes the respondents' unfair labor practice. o For under the circumstances, there is good ground to believe thatEncarnacion was made to spy on the activities of the union members. This act of the respondents is considered unjustifiable interference in the unionactivities of the petitioners and is unfair labor practice."It has been held in a great number of decisions that espionage by an employer of union activities, or surveillance thereof, are such instances of interference, restraint or coercion of employees in connection with their right to organize, form and join unions as to constitute unfair labor practice . . . o 'Nothing is more calculated to interfere with, restrain and coerce employees inthe exercise of their right to self organization than such activity even where no discharges result. The information obtained by means of espionage is invaluable to the employer and can be used in a variety of cases to break a union.' o The unfair labor practice is committed whether the espionage is carried on by aprofessional labor spy or detective, by officials or supervisory employees of theemployer, or by fellow employees acting at the request or direction of the employer, or an ex-employee . . ."

Economic Coercion And InducementInsular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1971)Indeed, when the respondents offered reinstatement and attempted to "bribe" the strikers with "comfortable cots," "free coffee and occasional movies," "overtime" pay for "work performed in excess of eight hours," and "arrangements" for their families, so they would abandon the strike and return to work, they were guilty of strike-breaking and/or union-busting and, consequently, of unfair labor practice

It is equivalent to an attempt to break a strike for an employer to offer

reinstatement to striking employees individually, when they are representedby a union, since the employees thus offered reinstatement are unable to determine what the consequences of returning to work would be.

5 | P a g e

Likewise violative of the right to organize, form and join labor organizations are the following acts: o the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal" employees of a company shortlyafter the making of a request by the union to bargain; wage increases givenfor the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer has refused to bargain with the union, or for the purpose of inducing striking employees to return to work; the employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of their strike in support of their union; andthe employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the strike started, to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the effect that if the strikers returned to work, they would receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization, accident insurance, profit- sharing, and a new building to work in. "The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within themeaning of subsection (a) (1) is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under section 3 of the Act, and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference thatanti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining."_____________COMPLEX ELECTRONICS UNION. vs. NLRC (1999)

FACTS: Complex Electronics Corporation was a subcontractor of electronic products. Its customers were foreign-based companies with different productlines. One of its customers is the Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co. Complex received a message from Lite-On Philippines requiring it to lower its price by 10%. Complex informed Lite-On that such request was notfeasible as they were already incurring losses at the present prices of their products. Complex informed the employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down the operations of the Lite-On Line. The company promised that it would follow the law by giving 1 month notice and retrenchment pay. Sometime later, the machinery, equipment and materials being used for production at Complex were pulled-out from the company premises and transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. in Laguna. The following day, Complex totally closed its operation. The Complex Employees Union filed a complaint for ULP, illegal closure/illegal lockout and money claims. It claims that business has not ceased at

Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics, a runaway shop, which is an act constituting ULP. To prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner asserts that Complex owns the majority of the shares comprising the increased capital stock of Ionics. The Union alleged that the reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the employees.

Issue: Whether Complex Electronics Corp. committed ULP

HELD: NOResorting to a runaway shop is ULP. A “runaway shop” is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners fromone location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their unionactivities. It is one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union purposes.In this case, Ionics was not set up for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute arose, Ionics was already existing as an independent company. It cannot, therefore, be said that the temporary closure in Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti-union purposes. We, likewise, disagree with the Union that there was in this case an illegal lockout/illegal dismissal. Lockout is the temporary refusal of employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. It may be manifested by the employer's act of excluding employees who are union members.________________TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABOR UNION vs. NLRC(1987)

FACTS: Tanduay Distillery, Inc. (TDI) and Tanduay Distillery Labor Union (TDLU) entered into a CBA which contained a “union security clause,” which provided:“All workers who are or may during the effectivity of this Contract, become members of the Union in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws shall, as a condition of their continued employment, maintain membership in good standing in the Union for the duration of the agreement.” While the CBA was still in effect, a number of the TDLU, joined another union, the Kaisahan Ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL) and organized itslocal chapter in TDI.

6 | P a g e

The TDLU required those who disaffiliated to explain why they should not be punished for “disloyalty.” TDLU created a committee to investigateits erring members. The committee recommended that the disaffiliating members be expelled and that they should be terminated from service in pursuant to theunion security clause. Acting on said request, the company terminated the employment of the disaffiliating union members.

Issue: Whether the dismissal of the disaffiliating members pursuant to a security clause constitutes ULP

Held: NOThe private respondents cannot escape the effects of the security clause of their own applicable CBA. Union Security Clauses in CBA, if freely and voluntarily entered into, are valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal of an employee bythe company pursuant to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute ULP.The respondent employer did nothing but to put in force their agreement when it separated the herein complainants upon the recommendation of said union. Such a stipulation is not only necessary to maintain loyaltyand preserve the integrity of the union but is allowed by the Magna Charta of Labor when it provided that while it is recognized that an employee shall have the right to selforganization, it is at the same time postulated that such right shall not injure the right of the labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.In Villar v. Inciong, we held that "petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliation from their union and to form a new organization of their own must however, suffer the consequences of their separation from the union under the security clause of the CBA"____________________

Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co.Concepcion ; April 29, 1960

NatureThis is an unfair labor practice case instituted at the instance of the Confederated Sons of Labor against the Anakan Lumber Company andthe United Workers' Union The amended complaint filed with the Court ofRelations charged said respondents with unfair labor practices committedby Anakan Lumber Company through dominating, assisting andinterferring with the administration of the respondent United Workers'Union and by contributing financial and other support to it and indiscriminating in regards to hire or tenure of employment for the purposeof encouraging membership in the respondent United Workers' Unionand/or discouraging membership in the complainant Confederated Sons

of Labor or because of union membership or activity by dismissing and infact did dismiss without cause all its workers affiliated with thecomplainant union and replaced by new ones. Also the United Workers'Union in causing the respondent Anakan Company to discriminate againstthe workers mentioned in Paragraph IV of the foregoing complaint inviolation of Section 4 (a), subparagraph 4 of the Act by demanding fromthe respondent Anakan Lumber Company the dismissal of said workersfrom their work therein, or in discriminating against them to whommembership in the respondent United Workers' Union have beenterminated on grounds other than the usual terms and conditions ofmembership made available to other members by expelling them asmembers from the said Union in violation of the respondent union'sConstitution and By-laws and who were subsequently dismissed bythe respondent Anakan Lumber Company on demand by therespondent United Workers' Union, in violation of Section 4(b), subparagraph2Of Republic Act No. 875.It appears that respondent union has a membership of more than1,000 laborers and employees of the company, with whom it entered,on January 23, 1955, into a contract entitled "Collective Bargainingand Closed Shop Agreement". Subsequently, 46 employees of thecompany and members of respondent union joined petitioner herein,which is another labor organization. As a consequence, said 46employees were expelled from respondent union, pursuant to itsconstitution and by-laws. Thereafter, respondent union demandedfrom the company the dismissal of these 46 employees, upon theauthority of Article II of said "Collective Bargaining and Closed ShopAgreement", and claiming to act in pursuance of such Article II and incompliance with the aforementioned agreement, the companydismissed said 46 employees. Inasmuch as they are members ofpetitioner herein, the latter caused this unfair labor practiceproceedings to be instituted.CIR dismiss the charge of union domination against the company.Upon the merits of the case presiding judge absolved union whilefinding company guilty of unfair labor practices in dismissing 46employees thereof and ordering said company "to cease and desistfrom engaging in unfair labor practice and to reinstate the 46employees concerned, with back wages from the date of theirseparation from its service until reinstated."MFR reversed. Thus, review for certiorari.

IssueWhether the company was bound to expel the aforementioned 46employees under the provisions of said Article II of its collectivebargaining agreement with respondent union

Held

7 | P a g e

That the UNION shall have the exclusive right, and privilege tosupply the COMPANY with such laborers, employees and workersas are necessary in the logging, mechanical, sawmill, office,logponds, motor pools, security guards and all departments in itsmany phases of operations, excepting such positions which arehighly technical and confidential in character and/or such positionswhich carry the exercise of authority in the interest of the COMPANYwhich exercise is not merely clerical or routinary within thecontemplation of the law, and that the COMPANY agrees to employor hire in any of its departments only such person or persons whoare members of the UNION.No. it is erroneous to consider such a closed shop agreement. Definition of Closed-Shop Agreement: Closed-Shop agreement is anagreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only membersof the contracting union who must continue to remain members ingood standing to keep their job. (National Labor Union vs.Aguinaldo's Echague, Inc., 51 Off. Gaz. No. 6, p. 2899, cited inBacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. and Alfredo T. Garcia vs. NationalEmployees-Workers Security Union, 53 Off. Gaz., 615; Emphasisours.)Rothenberg, in his work on Labor Relations, has the following to sayabout "closed shop":

____________: MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWASA M. GREENFIELD V RAMOS 326 SCRA 428PURISIMA; February 28, 2000

NATUREPetition for certiorariFACTS-Petitioner MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA M. GREENFIELD (MSMG) had a union security clause provision on their CBA with respondent M. Greenfield Inc.-MSMG was an affiliate of respondent United Lumber and GeneralWorkers of the Philippines (ULGWP) (Federation).-MSMG held a general membership meeting. Many did not attend. As such they were fined with P50 by the union. MSMG wrote to respondent company saying that they deduct the P50 from the employees’ salaries. ULGWP opposed and wrote to respondentcompany. The company did not deduct.-The imposition of P50.00 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local union culminating in the latter's declaration of general autonomy-The officials of ULGWP called a Special National Executive Board Meeting where a Resolution was passed placing the MSMG under trusteeship and appointing respondent Cesar Clarete as administrator.

-The said administrator wrote the respondent company informing the latter of its designation of a certain Alfredo incumbent union officers from representing the employees. This action by the national federation was protested by the petitioners- The petitioner union officers received identical letters from the administrator requiring them to explain within 72 hours why they should not be removed from their office and expelled from union membership.-ULGWP advised respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause. The company at first refused but later, when the ULGWP declared a strike against them,they subsequently agreed.

ISSUE/S1. WON MSMG’s disaffiliation was an act of disloyalty to ULGWP

HELD1. NORatio A local union has the right to disaffiliate from its mother union or declare its autonomy. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interests of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate or declare its autonomy from the federation to which it belongs when circumstances warrant, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.

Reasoning

-The purpose of affiliation by a local union with a mother union or a federation is to increase by collective action the bargaining power in respect of the terms and conditions of labor. Yet the locals remained the basic units of association, free to serve their own and the common interest of all, subject to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and free also to renounce the affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which broughtit into existence.

-Thus, a local union which has affiliated itself with a federation is free to sever such affiliation anytime and such disaffiliation cannot be considered disloyalty. In the absence of specific provisions in the federation's constitution prohibiting disaffiliation or the declaration of autonomy of a local union, a local may dissociate with its parent union.

-The evidence on hand does not show that there is such a provision in ULGWP's constitution. Respondents' reliance upon Article V, Section 6, of the federation's constitution is not right because said section, in fact, bolsters the petitioner union's claim of its right to declare autonomy:

8 | P a g e

Sec. 6. The autonomy of a local union affiliated with ULGWP shall be respected insofar as it pertains to its internal affairs, except as provided elsewhere in this Constitution.

-There is no disloyalty to speak of, neither is there any violation of the federation's constitution because there is nothing in the said constitution which specifically prohibits disaffiliation or declaration of autonomy.

Hence, there cannot be any valid dismissal because Article II, Section 4 of the union security clause in the CBA limits the dismissal to only three (3) grounds, to wit: failure to maintain membership in the union (1) for nonpayment of union dues, (2) for resignation; and (3) for violation of the union's Constitution and By-Laws

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa saGreenfield v. Ramos (2000)Another reason why the Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal is due to the existence of a no strike no lockout provision in the CBA. Again, such a ruling is erroneous. A no strike, no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is economic in nature, i.e. to force wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice, as was the honest belief of herein petitioners. Again, whether or not there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike.

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa saGreenfield v. Ramos (2000)With regard to the issue of the legality orillegality of the strike, the Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a strike, the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out" clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, force and intimidation upon the persons of the company officials, other employees reporting for work and third persons having legitimate business with the company, resulting to serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to company property. On the submission that the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non strikeable issue, that is, the intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union, it bears reiterating that when respondent company dismissed the union officers, the issue was transformed into a termination dispute and brought respondent company into the picture.Petitioners believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by the federation, respondent company was guilty of unfair labor practice in that it violated the petitioner’s right to self-organization. The

strike was staged to protest respondent company’s act of dismissing the union officers. Even if the allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to be untrue, the presumption of legality of the strike prevails.

Greenfield v. Ramos, GR No. 113907, 28 February 2000Union security clauses in the collective bargaining agreements, if freely and voluntarily entered into, are valid and binding. Thus, the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union’s demand in accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute unfair labor practice.

Malayang Samahan v. Ramos , 326 SCRA 428 (2000)The reason behind the enforcement of union security clauses which is the sanctity and inviolability of contracts cannot override one’s right to due process.

The company was not justified in dismissing the employees based on the federation’s demand for enforcement of the security clause. Even on the assumption that the federation had valid grounds to do so, due process requires that these union officers be accorded a separate hearing by respondent company. Also, notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal was at the instance of the federation, the company may still be held liable if it was remiss in its duty to accord the would-be dismissed employees their right to be heard on the matter.__________________

QUERY: (SALUNGA CASE): Mr. S is a former union president. When X was elected union president, Mr. S is always complaining about X’s leadership. X tells Mr. S that if he is dissatisfied then why continue being a member, Mr. S then filed his letter of resignation to the Union. The following day, the personnel manager of the Corp. called Mr. S about the Union Security Clause that continued membership is a condition for continued employment. When Mr. S realized it, he wants to take back his letter of resignation. But X refused and said that it is too late for S because the resignation had been accepted. X called the Mgt. To terminate S on the basis of the USC and also the mgt., with no choice, terminated S> Then s filed an illegal dismissal case and for ULP because he was dismissed for his lawful exercise of the Right to SO.

Q: Is Mr. S Correct?A: YES, S illegally dismissed. When he resigned and the union accepted his resignation, that is still a regular conduct, but when he act to take back his resignation, such act is equivalent to a re-application. Since that is an application and there is NO GRAVE and SUBSTANTIAL reason to deny his application, he should have been accepted because there was a USC.

9 | P a g e

Q: Who will pay his backwages?A: It is the union and not the management because the latter was supposed to have terminated S in good faith.

Q: When can the ER be obliged to pay back wages and damages?A: If a Union, by virtue of a USC, writes to the ER for the dismissal of an EE whose membership is terminated and the ER dismissed said EE, but the ER failed to CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION on whether or not the EE was granted Due Process, then the ER is obliged to pay solidarity with the union for back wages and damages as a consequence of the dismissal from work. However, if the ER finds that the EE was not granted Due Process, then ER is under no obligation to comply with the request of the union.

Take Note of the MATTER of EMPLOYER’s INVESTIGATION is: “Whether or not the EE is granted Due Process under the constitution and by-laws of the CBA.” The investigation is not on the merits of the EE’s is dismissed from the union, but it is to find out whether the EE was given his day before the union officers. Q: What is the difference between the Dionela and Golden Donuts case:A: In Dionela, the V.P. and the 27 union members were NOT the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST (RPII) because the RPII is the union representing the 3 who were dismissed. In Golden Donuts, all the 262 were the RPII; therefore, each one of them must sign the compromise. The union cannot sign for them; it can only bring the case for them, but it can never sign for them.

This is the same in ABS-CBN Supervisors Union vs NLRC, where everybody signed except a few. They were signing authority to deduct from whatever they would get in the CBA, to be given to the lawyer for atty.’s fees.

Q: Can the union enter into a contract with an attorney w/ respect to the dispute and pledge contribution from each union member?A: YES. The amount entered into by the union is binding. But if it is not signed individually by each union member as to deduction from their salaries, it does not bind them; it only binds union funds. It cannot just be deducted because that will be special assessments. _________________TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION V. TROPICALHUT FOOD MARKET INC.181 SCRA 173MEDIALDEA; Jan 20, 1990

NATUREPetition for certiorari.

FACTS- Rank and file workers of Tropical Hut organized a Union (THEU) and sought affiliation with NATU. Registration certificate was issued by Dept of Labor. But NATU itself was not registered as a federation.- CBA was concluded bet the 2 parties.- Dilag, President of Union, was appointed Manager. He resigned as President of THEU-NATU. VP Encinas assumed presidency.- THEU wrote NATU saying they want to disaffiliate from the federation.THEU affiliated with CGW.- THEU-CGW conducted elections and Encinas won. NATU requested Tropical Hut to dismiss Encinas because of his “violations”.- Tropical Hut suspended Encinas pending application for clearance with Dept of Labor to dismiss him. THEU-CGW members protested.- Upon request of NATU, Tropical Hut also suspended and applied for clearance to dismiss members and officers of THEU-CGW.- A petition was made to cancel the word NATU after the word THEU in the registration.- NLRC directed certification election between THEU-NATU and THEUCGW.Reinstatements of complainants were also ordered.

ISSUE/S1. WON petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they immediately elevated the case to this Court without an appeal having been made to the Office of the President2. WON disaffiliation of local union from the national federation was valid3. WON dismissal of petitioner employees resulting from their unions disaffiliation from the mother federation was illegal and constituted unfair labor practice

HELD1. NORemedy of appeal from the Secretary of Labor to the Office of the President is not a mandatory requirement before resort to courts can be had, but an optional relief provided by law to parties seeking expeditious disposition of their labor disputes.

2. YES- The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well settled.A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.- The inclusion of the word NATU after the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the Department of Labor is merely to stress that the

10 | P a g e

THEU is NATU's affiliate at the time of the registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand on its own.- In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union a local may severe its relationship with its parent. There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in theconstitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation.

Firstly, NATU was not even a legitimate labor organization, it appearing that it was not registered. Secondly, the act of non-compliance with the procedure on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which cannot rise above the fundamental right ofself-organization.

- There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the act of disaffiliation violated the union security clause of the CBA and that their dismissal as a consequence thereof is valid. A perusal of the collectivebargaining agreements shows that the THEU-NATU, and not the NATU federation, was recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent. Although NATU was designated as the sole bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form attached to the CBA, this simply means it was acting only for and in behalf of its affiliate. NATU possessed the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic principal union.

3. YES- The union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be used to justify the dismissals. CBA imposes dismissal only in case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation.

- With regard to the process by which the workers were suspended or dismissed, this Court finds that it was hastily and summarily done without the necessary due process._____________

GANA NOTES:

In Tropical Hut Employees' Union vs. Tropical Hut (181 SCRA 174), the SC held that since a local union is a separate and vol. association, free to serve the interests of all its members, it has the right to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. A local owes its creation to its members, not the federation. When the local withdraw to join a new federation, it was simply exercising its rights to organize. Since nothing in the CBL prevents disaffiliation, a local may sever its relations with its parent.

So, even if the CBL required 3 months' prior notice and the local did not follow it, the SC said that's a mere technicality. It cannot rise above the fundamental right to organize. Secondly, NATU is not even registered.

Just because the local union registered as THEU-NATU, that does not mean you can't live without NATU. All that means is that you were an affiliate of NATU at the time you registered.

NATU did not lose its personality as bargaining agent___________________KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK V HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY G.R. No. L-18112 CONCEPCION; October 30, 1962

NATUREAppeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations

FACTS- On September 24, 1957, two labor unions, composed of employees andlaborers of the Company, were registered with the Department of Labor,namely, petitioner Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa ng Alak (NAFLU), andrespondent Hamilton Workers' Union (Workers' Union). Thereupon, thelatter and the Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement,incorporated into a private instrument purporting to have been executedon September 24, 1957. Moreover, the Company issued a notice bearingthe same date, addressed to all of its employees, giving non-members ofthe Workers' Union 30 days within which to join the same, or else, bedismissed.- Upon learning that the NAFLU was being organized, Co Bon Beng(superintendent of Company) sent for Francisco Dumlao, and inquiredwhether it was true that he had organized said labor union and was itspresident. Upon receipt of an affirmative answer, Co Bon Beng urgedDumlao to dissolve the NAFLU, for otherwise he would be dismissed.When Dumlao answered that he could not follow this advice, Co BonBeng bade him to look for another job.- On September 24, 1957, Co Bon Beng refused to admit him to work,upon the ground that he was unwilling to dissolve the NAFLU.Subsequently, some members thereof resigned therefrom and joined theWorkers' Union, because otherwise they would be dismissed by theCompany. Beginning from September 30, 1957, those who remainedaffiliated to the NAFLU were allowed to work only 2 days a week and onOctober 28, 1957 some members of the NAFLU, who did not join theWorkers' Union, were dismissed by the Company.- The dismissed employees reported the matter to the Court of IndustrialRelations, with which a formal complaint for unfair labor practice was filedagainst the Company, its aforementioned superintendent and manager,and the Workers' Union. In their answer to this complaint, respondentsdenied the charge and invoked a "closed shop" clause in the collective

11 | P a g e

bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers' Union.- On October 11, 1957, the NAFLU filed with the Court of IndustrialRelations a petition for certification. On November 25, 1957, the NAFLUfiled, in the unfair labor practice proceedings, an urgent petition for an ----------------1 To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment orany term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, Thatnothing in this Act or in any other Act or statute of the Republicof the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making anagreement with a labor organization to require as a condition ofemployment membership therein, if such labor organization isthe representative of the employees as provided in sectiontwelve;"-----------------

injunctive relief, praying, among other things, that the effectivity ofthe collective bargaining agreement between the Company and theWorkers' Union be suspended and that the Company be ordered toreinstate the dismissed employees or laborers with backpay. Thispetition was denied. Thereafter, said Court rendered a decisiondismissing the unfair labor practice case. A reconsideration of suchdecision having been denied by the Court sitting en banc, the case isnow before us on appeal by certiorari taken by the NAFLU.

ISSUE(1) WON the collective bargaining agreement between the Companyand the Workers' Union had been made fraudulently; and(2) WON the dismissal of members of the NAFLU who had failed andrefused to join the Workers' Union constitutes an unfair laborpractice.HELD1. YES- One cannot minimize the importance of the fact that, although theWorkers' Union was registered on September 24, 1957, its collectivebargaining agreement with the Company and the notice issued bythe Company — giving its employees who were not members of theWorkers' Union 30 days to join the same, or else be dismissed —bear the same date. Likewise, note-worthy is the circumstance that,aside from being a Chinese, Valentin Kaw, the president of theWorkers' Union was the timekeeper of the Company, who as such,had supervisory authority over its employees and laborers, and could, therefore, exercise substantial pressure upon them to induce,if not compel, them to join the Workers' Union, and that the treasurerthereof was his brother Benito Kaw, another Chinese. Consideringfurther that said agreement was contained in a private document,and that the NAFLU was, also, registered as a duly organized labor

union, on the date aforementioned, we find it difficult to avoid thefeeling that the Workers' Union was, if not company dominated, atleast organized under the patronage of the Company, and that thesame was in such a hurry to bargain with the Workers' Union, inorder to beat the NAFLU and prevent it from taking appropriateaction prior thereto, that the agreement was made in a Privateinstrument, thus suggesting that it must have been made late atnight. Otherwise the agreement could have been executed before anotary public for the corresponding acknowledgment.- Indeed, the record shows that, despite several defections from theNAFLU, prior to the expiration of the period given by the Company tonon-members of the Workers' Union, the Company had to dismiss 52members of the NAFLU, apart from its president, for failure to join theWorkers' Union within said period. Considering that the Companyhad altogether around 100 employees only, it is clear that a petitionfor certification election, if filed by the NAFLU prior to the executionof the collective bargaining agreement between the Workers' Unionand the company, would have, in all probability, barred effectivelysaid agreement.

2. YES- The provisions of the CBA do not legalize the dismissal of membersof the NAFLU. The lower court held otherwise, relying upon the"closed shop" clause of said agreement reading:"That the COMPANY shall establish the policy of 'Union Shop'effective October 24, 1957. All workers shall by that date becomemembers of the UNION, except those monthly salaries employees,and other supervisor-employees (technical men) listed by theManagement. The COMPANY shall be free to hire new laborers without giving consideration to their membership or non-membership to the Union. However, all laborers hired must join the UNION within sixty (60) days of employment, or face discharge, except, those selected by the Management above. The UNION assumes responsibility of individually signing up new laborers."- In this connection, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that, in theabsence of a manifest intent to the contrary, "closed shop" provisionsin a collective bargaining agreement apply only to persons to behired or to employees who are not yet members of any labororganization and that said provisions of the agreement are notapplicable to those already in the service at the time of its execution.- The language of the above quoted "closed shop" clause is not suchas to bar necessarily the limitation of its application to new employees or laborers, or at least, to those who were not as yet affiliated to any labor organization. The first sentence of said clause may be construed to refer to laborers or employees admitted after September 24, but before October 24, 1957. At any rate, if the Company and the Workers' Union intended, by said clause, to authorize the dismissal of persons already in the service of said Company on or before September 24,

12 | P a g e

1957, but belonging to another labor organization, and who failed to quit from the latter and join the Workers' Union on or before October 24, 1957, then such stipulation would be null and void.

Disposition decision appealed from is reversed_______________

MABEZA vs. NLRC (1997)

FACTS:

Petitioner Norma Mabeza contends that she and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotel's management to signan instrument wherein it states that they are in compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provisions of law. Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City Prosecutor's Office to swear to the truth of her statement. Her refusal displeased theemployer. Thereafter, she was ordered to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings from the hotel. Subsequently, she as charged with of abandonment of job and stealing of company property; finally she was dismissed for loss of confidence.

Issue: Whether the dismissal constitutes ULP?

Held: YESThe act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not, together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse tocooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act clearly preempts the right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through concerted action. In not giving positive testimony in favor of her employer, petitioner had reserved not only her right to dispute the claim and proffer evidence in support thereof but also to work forbetter terms and conditions of employment._____________NO DIGEST FOR PICOP__________________

GOOD LUCK TO US =)