Cases On Unfair Labor Practice 4b5n5e

LABOR LAW REVIEW Atty. Natividad Roma Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes Philippine Christian University College of Law FINAL PROJECT ON LABOR LAW REVIEW Case Title

Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. EmployeesAssociation NATU et al. (37 SCRA 244)

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Who are the Who are the What are the facts of the Is there an unfair labor employers? employees? case? practice? If yes, on what ground? The employers The employees In this case, the Union There is unfair labor are the Insular are represented submitted a proposal to the practice in this case, Life Assurance by the Insular Life companies for the modified because the employer Co., Ltd. Assurance Co., renewal of their respective refused to bargain with Ltd. Employees bargaining contracts where the Union. Association-NATU were due to expire. There is unfair labor practice when the employer in herein case: 1. Notified absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive efforts at collective bargaining (which under the law, is considered inference with the right of employees to collectively bargain)

What happened to the case? The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 is reversed and set aside, and another is entered, ordering the respondents to reinstate the dismissed of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively similar positions, with backwages from June 2, 1958 up to the dates of their actual reinstatements.

Costs against 2. When the employers respondents. attempt to individually negotiate with the employees with respect to the changes in the CBA (because under the law, the employer must negotiate with the employees collectively, and not individually) 3. When the company president wrote individual letters urging them to return to work— is considered inference (because individual solicitation of employees urging them to cease any union activity also constitutes unfair labor practice) 4. When the company offered Christmas bonus to all loyal employees— shortly after the union made a request to bargain

the

Moreover, the Supreme Court stressed the “totality of conduct doctrine” as a test whether the employer engaged in unfair labor practice.

Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative v. NLRC (323 SCRA 86)

The employers are Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative (NEECO I)

The employees are petitioners Fajardo, Guevarra, Baguisa, Carillo and Javata.

In this case, based on the appreciation of the facts of the high court, it is therefore evident that the employer is indeed guilty of unfair labor practice. There is unfair labor practice in this case, but the issue is whether or not moral damages may be awarded in case there exists unfair labor practice?

The labor dispute arose when the employer promoted union officers to supervisory rank, which caused apprehension in the labor organization. According to the union, this is considered harassment which threatened union and circumvented the employees’ Where there was unfair security of tenure. labor practice in the dismissal of employees, it is proper to impose moral and exemplary damages on the employer.

Private respondent Nueva Ecija 1 Electric Cooperative is hereby ORDERED through its executive officers: 1. to pay individual petitioners their full backwages from the time they were illegally dismissed until Thus, in determining the the date of amount of damages their recoverable, the business, reinstatement

social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the offender are taken into .

on March 13, 1992, minus the amount they received as "retirement" pay. In the event that the computed backwages of a concerned petitioner is less than the amount of socalled "retirement" pay already received, the difference should be treated as advances refundable from his salary until fully repaid; 2. to pay moral and exemplary damages in the amount of ten thousand (P10,000.00)

pesos and five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos, respectively, to each of the petitioners who were illegally terminated and/or compulsorily retired; 3. to pay ten (10%) of the total amount due to petitioners as attorney's fees; and 4. to pay the cost of suits. Respondent NLRC is ORDERED to RECOMPUTE the total monetary benefits awarded and due to the employees concerned in accordance with the decision and to submit its

compliance thereon within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision, with copies furnished to the parties. Balmar Farms The employer is v. NLRC, (G.R. Balmar Farms, a 73504) corporation organized and existing under the Philippine law, engaged with the planting of bananas.

The employees The labor dispute started when are represented ALU sent letter proposals to by Association Balmar as to the collective Labor Union (ALU) bargaining agreement, to which Balmar responded that it cannot act favorably on its request because of the alleged Employees’ Union disaffiliation with the ALU.

There is unfair labor practice in this case, because of the employer’s refusal to bargain

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed resolution is The Court ruled that AFFIRMED. Balmar’s refusal to bargain collectively with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor practice.

It can therefore be inferred that Balmar’s refusal to bargain collectively with ALU is a clear act of unfair labor practice. Failure of Balmar to recognize ALU because of an alleged letter which was not even verified is a clear act of unfair labor practice. Lakas ng The employer in The Unions The labor dispute commenced The employer is NOT WHEREFORE, upon Manggagawan this case are concerned in this when, because of several guilty of unfair labor the foregoing

g Makabayan (LAKAS) v. Marcelo Enterprises, et al. (118 SCRA 422)

respondents Marcelo Enterprises—or companies comprising Marcelo Companies

case is Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan (LAKAS), Philippine Social Security Labor Union (PSSLU), and several other unions from Marcelo Tire and Marcelo Rubber.

unions negotiating with the practice, based on these employer regarding the CBA, premise: the management deemed it necessary to ask for proof of 1. There is no evidence authorization from the unions as that Marcelo was guilty they were informed of of ULP in asking the conflicting claims among returning strikers to fill unions. up their forms on when they are available for They further suggested they file work, since no evidence for certification election to showed the fact that resolve these conflicting claims Marcelo companies were among unions, as the seeking for an certification election will opportunity to discharge determine the sole and the employees for union exclusive bargaining agent of activities or discriminate the employer. against them. management’s Strike ensued, and notices to 2. The suggestion that the return to work were posted; and union file necessary the management required complaint in court in workers to fill up their forms so view of the fact that that they may be given there are several unions schedule to return to work. claiming to represent employees do not constitute failure or refusal to bargain. As a matter of fact, there exists a legitimate labor representation issue

considerations, the petition in L-38258 is dismissed and the petition in L-38260 is granted. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is rendered holding that the respondent Marcelo Companies are not guilty of unfair labor practice.

among the unions that is needed to be resolved with. 3. Where there exists a legitimate issue as to which several unions is the legitimate representative of employees, it is unfair labor practice for one of the unions to stage a strike and demand that the employer sits down with it for collective bargaining. In the first place, since there was a labor representation issue, there exists no duty on the part of the management to bargain collectively with Lakas on the part of said companies. 4. Lastly, there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of employers, since the company’s refusal to accede to the demands of Lakas union

is justified as there is no showing that they were in the same state of financial or economic affairs.

Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran and Eleanor Ambas (240 SCRA 587)

Employer in this case is Colegio de San Juan de Letran

Employees are represented by Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran and Eleanor Ambas, Union President.

5. Hence, the employer is justified in requiring a reasonable scheduling of working hours of returning striking employees and inquiring into their time availabilities. The Union, through its Employer is guilty of WHEREFORE, premi President; sought for CBA unfair labor practice for ses considered, the renegotiation with employer its refusal to bargain petition is DENIED for Letran, which the latter ignored lack of merit. for more than a month, without The Court stressed out in any counter-proposals. this case that the duty to bargain collectively means As a result of the dispute, the the performance of a Union President was dismissed mutual obligation to meet on the ground of and convene promptly and insubordination. expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement.

Second, employer’s lack of interest in bargaining with the union is a clear violation of the Labor Code, specifically Article 250 which governs the procedure in collective bargaining, and the company’s refusal to make counter-proposal to the union’s proposed CBA is an indication of bad faith. Letran’s lack of interest in bargaining is obvious in its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the latter. More than a month after the proposals were submitted, petitioner still had not made any counterproposals. This inaction prompted the union to file its second notice of strike. Moreover, when Letran did not bother to even submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the

union, there clearly is evasion of duty to bargain collectively. Unlike Lakas versus Marcela, there is no legitimate labor representation issue in this case.

Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Bandolino et al. v. NLRC (G.R. 125195)

Employer in this case is Bandolino Shoes Corporation. German, Aida and Mimi Alcantara are owners of Bandolino Shoes Corporation

Employees in this case are former employees of Bandolino Shoes and of union Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Bandolino.

In this case, the labor dispute started when petitioners Franco, Florencio and Reyes were directed to take a two-week leave because of a strike at Shoemart, Bandolino’s biggest customer.

Lastly, Ambas’ right to selforganization must not be interfered with by Letran by illegally dismissing the Union President without just and authorized cause. Bandolino Shoes is guilty of unfair labor practice by interference of the employees’ right to self-organize, even before the union has been ed.

Later that day Franco and his wife were called to the personnel manager’s office and was told that Franco had been dismissed on the ground of failure to divulge the names of the union and

Even disregarding evidence of illegal conditions imposed by private respondents for petitioner’s return to work, there was substantial evidence remaining in record to

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the NLRC dated May 31, 1995 is set aside and the decision of the labor arbiter dated July 22, 1992 is reinstated, with the modification that only Jaime Sibug should be given holiday pay, while all petitioners should be given 13th-month

organizers.

sustain the labor arbiter’s pay and decision that private backwages. respondents are guilty of unfair labor practice.

full

There were evidences to the effect that Franco had been asked to disclose the names of of the union and that the management had shown interest In unionizing activities of the petitioners. It also appears that only alleged of the union were put on “rotation”. The Labor Arbiter’s observation during the hearing that private respondents had shown hostility towards petitioners for their union activities is a determination of fact which is based on the totality of private respondents’ conduct, which indicates an anti-union bias. St. John The employer The employees The CBA between St. John and There is unfair Colleges v. St. herein is St. John concerned are the the Union was about to expire. practice in this

labor case,

WHEREFORE, petition

the

John Academy Faculty and Employees Union (G.R. 167892)

Colleges, a 80 teaching and corporation non-teaching which owns and personnel of the operates St. John company who are Academy. of St. John Academy Faculty and Employees Union

During the negotiations, St. John rejected the proposals for an increase in worker’s benefits which resulted in the bargaining deadlock which in turn led to the holding of a valid strike by the Union.

because the employer may not unilaterally close its establishment on the pretext that the demands of employees are excessive.

The Labor Code does not To end the strike, both parties authorize its employer to agreed to refer the matter to close its establishment on the Secretary of Labor. the ground of illegal or excessive demands of the However, after the Secretary of Union. Labor granted additional compensation, St. John issued Aside from the remedy of an order regarding the school submitting the dispute for closure due to “irreconcilable voluntary compulsory differences” between the Union arbitration, the employer and the school. may have opted to file a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Union for bargaining in bad faith. If found guilty, that gives rise to the civil and criminal action and allows the employer to implement a lock out (temporary work stoppage) but not closure of establishment resulting to the permanent loss of

is DENIED. The April 22, 2004 Decision and April 15, 2005 Resolution of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74519 are AFFIRMED.

Me Shurn v. Employer in this Me Shurn case is Me Shurn Workers (G.R. Corporation. 156292)

Employees are represented by Me Shurn Workers Union, an of February 6 Movement. The Union had a pending application for registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

employment for the entire workforce. Me-Shurn is guilty of unfair labor practice— since the totality of evidence show that the real reason behind the shutdown of the corporation was the formation of the union.

10 days after the Union filed for its registration, the petitioner Me-Shurn Corp. started placing on forced leave all the rank-andfile employees who were of the union’s bargaining unit. Respondent Union then filed a certification with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE. It is worthy to note that to constitute unfair labor Instead of filing an answer, the practice, the dismissal need Corporation filed a comment not entirely and exclusively which stated that it will instead be motivated by union’s temporarily lay off its activities. It is enough that employees and cease discrimination was a operations. contributing factor. Thus, if the basic inspiration for the Thus, the Union filed a notice of act of the employer is strike against the corporation derived from the affiliation on the ground of unfair labor or activities of the union, practice—specifically, illegal the corporation’s reason, lockout and union busting. The no matter how seemingly corporation contended that due valid is unavailing. to economic reversals, it was compelled to close and cease its operations to prevent serious losses.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.

The issue therefore in this case is whether or not the dismissal of the employees is for an authorized cause. If otherwise, whether or not they are guilty of illegal lockout and union busting which are all an exercise of unfair labor practice? T&H Employer in this Employees are Respondent Union are all Shopfitters v. case is T&H represented by employees of petitioner. In their T&H Shopfitters. T&H Shopfitters desire to improve the working Shopfitters Union. conditions, they formed T&H Union (G.R. Union. A day after their 191714) meeting, 17 employees were barred from entering petitioner’s factory premises in Zambales and ordered to transfer T&H warehouse at Subic Bay Freeport Zone purportedly for its expansion. After the union was formed, the employer sponsored field trip to Zambales to the exclusion of union before the scheduled certification election and afterwards, 17 employees were ordered to go on forced leave due to the unavailability of work. The Union contends that

The totality of the employer’s acts summarily restricted employees’ right to organize. The Court ruled that the questioned acts of petitioners, namely: 1. Sponsoring a field trip to Zambales for its employees to the exclusion of Union before the scheduled certification election, 2. The active campaign by the sales officer of petitioners against the union prevailing as bargaining agent during the field trip, 3. Escorting its employees after the field trip to the polling center and 4. Continuous hiring of

Anent the issue on the award of attorney’s fess, the applicable law concerning the grant thereof in labor cases is Article 111 of the Labor Code. Pursuant thereto, the award of 10% attorney’s fees is limited to cases of unlawful withholding of wages. In this case, however, the Court cannot find any claim or proof that petitioners unlawfully withheld the wages of respondents. Consequently, the grant of 10% attorney’s fees in favor of respondents

they were not given work assignments while the subcontractors were continuously hired to perform their functions. Following the Union’s certification election, petitioners retrenched the Union on the alleged financial losses and assigned work on a rotational basis. Further it was on the impression that the employees who opposed its economic measures were motivated by spite in filing the complaint for ULP against it.

Arellano Employer in this University case is Arellano Employees University. and Workers Union v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. 139940)

Employees are Arellano University Employees and Workers Union, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of Arellano

The issue therefore in this case is whether or not there was unfair labor practice committed on the part of the company? The Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (Union), the exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank and file employees of Arellano University—filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board a Notice of

subcontractors performing respondents’ functions and 5. Asg union to the Cabangan site to work as grass cutters and 6. The enforcement of work on a rotational basis for union , taken together, reasonably inference that indeed, such were all orchestrated to restrict the Union’s free exercise of their right to self-organization.

Evidently, the University cannot be faulted for unfair labor practice as merely heeded the request of Union in good faith.

is not justified under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to delete the same. WHEREFORE, the November 12, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its March 24, 2010 Resolution, in CA– G.R. SP No. 107188, are AFFIRMED, except with respect to the award of attorney’s fees which is hereby DELETED.

The NLRC Decision of October 12, 1998 and Resolution of January 20, 1999 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that The Court ruled that to the dismissal of constitute ULP, violations of petitioner-union

University.

Strike charging the University the CBA must be gross. with ULP as follows: Gross violation under Art. 261 of the Labor Code, 1. Interfering with union means flagrant and/or activities malicious refusal to comply 2. Union busting by CBA with the economic violation and disregard provisions thereof. of union’s request to deduct penalties from In this case, the right of the its who were incumbent bargaining absent and without representative to check off justifiable reasons and to collect dues during union meetings resulting therefrom shall 3. And contracting not be affected by the workout where the pendency of a management contracts representation case or an out services and intra-union dispute. functions performed by the Union . Thereafter, a strike was staged and on the same day, the DOLE directed the strikers to return to work with 24 hours. During the NLRC proceedings, the NLRC found that: 1. With respect to the alleged interference, the NLRC found out

MONICO CALMA, CONSTANCIO BAYHONAN, BERNARDO SABLE, NESTOR BRINOSA, NANJI MACARAMPAT, EDUARDO FLORAGUE and DIONY S. LUMANTA is SET ASIDE, and they are thus ordered REINSTATED WITHOUT BACKWAGES. If their reinstatement is no longer possible, however, they should be given SEPARATION PAY at the rate of One (1) Month pay for every year of service.

that there was no factual basis to hold the University guilty of union busting as the petitioners have initiated the strike out of their own volition. 2. With respect to the union busting, the NLRC ruled that with respect to the refusal of the University to deduct penalties from the salaries of of the Union who failed to attend meetings, the NLRC ruled that the law mandates that the Union should not be arbitrary, excessive or oppressive in imposing a fine. 3. On the claim that the University had been contracting out work, the NLRC held that the same was never raised during the conciliation

meetings at the NCMB level. In the issue before the Supreme Court, the Arellano insists that the University violated the CBA by withholding union dues and death benefits. The University counters that on the request of Union in light of their gripes against the Union and its officers, it did withhold said dues and benefits which they deposited before the DOLE where the parties could settle the issues among themselves.