Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Law Bar Reviewer Atty Manuel
Labor Law Bar Reviewer Atty Manuel
Art. 2. Date of effectivity. This Code shall take effect six (6)
months after its promulgation. (P.D. 442 was made effective on
November 1, 1974)
Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy.
The State shall:
afford protection to labor,
promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or
creed,
and regulate the relations between workers and employers.
The State shall assure the rights of workers to:
a) self-organization,
b) collective bargaining,
c) security of tenure, and
d) just and humane conditions of work.
Art. 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code,
including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved
in favor of labor.
Art. 5. Rules and regulations. The Department of Labor and
Employment, and other government agencies charged with the
administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts
shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and
regulations. Such rules and regulations shall become effective
fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in
newspapers of general circulation.
Art. 6.
Applicability. All rights and benefits granted to
workers under this Code shall, except as may otherwise be
provided herein, apply alike to all workers, whether agricultural or
non-agricultural.
Art. 211. Declaration of policy.
A.
(a)
(b)
(c)
To promote:
free trade unionism
as an instrument for
the enhancement of democracy and
the promotion of social justice and development;
To foster:
the free and voluntary organization
of a strong and united labor movement;
promote:
the enlightenment of workers
concerning their rights and obligations
as union members and as employees;
(d)
To
-
(e)
To provide:
an adequate administrative machinery
for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial
disputes;
(f)
To ensure:
a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and
CIVIL CODE
(g)
To
-
B.
To encourage
a truly democratic method of regulating the relations
between the employers and employees by means of
agreements freely entered into through collective
bargaining,
no court or administrative agency or official shall have
the power to set or fix
wages,
rates of pay,
hours of work
or other terms and conditions of employment,
except as otherwise provided under this Code.
Art. 1700. The relation between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are co impressed with public interest that labor
contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such
contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective
bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
ensure:
the participation of workers
in decision and policy-making processes
affecting their rights, duties and welfare.
Art. 275.
(a)
Art. 1701. Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against
the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.
Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living
for the laborer.
Art. 1703. No contract which practically amounts to involuntary
servitude, under any guise whatsoever, shall be valid.
CASES
Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Assoc. vs. PBM, 51 SCRA
189
Labor Arbiter ruled not guilty of ULP, but must provide all
employees with the new Code to discuss any objectionable items.
On appeal, NLRC said though adopting Rules of Conduct is a mgt.
prerogative, it can no longer exclude labor, and so must let them
participate in the review of the Code.
Art. 106.
Contractor or sub-contractor. Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with another person for the
performance of the formers work, the employees of the contractor
and of the latters sub-contractor, if any, shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Art. 109.
Solidary liability. - The provisions of existing
laws to the contrary notwithstanding, every employer or indirect
employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or
subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. For
purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this
Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers.
working for the petitioner, and the fact that they were reassigned
to another principal ends such responsibility. The same rule
applies to back wages and separation pay, with the added
qualification that to make the indirect employer liable, there must
be a finding of fault or conspiracy in the illegal dismissal.
LECTURE
It is important to determine the employer-employee
relationship in order to ascertain what rights and obligations of the
parties accrue in such a situation. The Labor Code attempts to
define who is an employer and an employee, but miserably fails to
do so! Thus, in determining existence of employer-employee
relationship the Code cannot be the basis! As such, jurisprudence
is essential and must be resorted to, in order to determine the
existence of such relationship.
Jurisprudence provides a FOUR-WAY or FOUR-FOLD TEST
to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship:
1) Hiring a written agreement is not necessary, and is not a
conclusive test because it can be avoided and confused by
the use of subcontracting agreements or other contracts
other than employment contracts.
2) Firing termination and disciplinary measures; however, it
is not conclusive because the question of employeremployee relationship may arise even before the firing
occurs. In cases other than an employment contract, such
as a managment contract, the fact that an employer has
not fired does not negate the existence of employeremployee relationship.
3) Wages as defined in Art. 97 (f) of the Labor Code, it
must be remuneration capable of being expressed in terms
of money, payable by an employer to an employee for
work or services to be done or rendered
4) Control The element of control pertains not only to the result of
the work to be done but also control over the manner or method to
be employed. There is no need for the employer to have actually
exercised control, as long as he had the opportunity to do so.
Consequently, proof must be given reflecting a manifestation of
control, such as monitoring the work, letting the employee work in
- Has no substantial
investment
capital
AND
Joint and several with the employer, but with the right to
reimbursement from the employer contractor
III.
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
Probationary employment.
Probationary employment
shall not exceed six months from the date the employee
started working,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement
stipulating a longer period.
The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated
for a just cause or
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee
a) in accordance with reasonable standards
b) made known by the employer to the employee at the
time of his engagement.
LABOR CODE
Art. 280.
Regular and casual employment. The
provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding
CASES
De Leon V. NLRC, 176 SCRA 615
10
11
Petitioners are farm workers who are contending that they are
regular farm workers of Cruz and other respondents and thus, are
entitled to benefits like overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive
leave, ECOLA, 13th month pay, etc.
They claim that they have been working for 12 hours a
day the whole year round for almost 19 years (others, for 30
years).
Respondents deny that petitioners are regular workers
since they are only hired to work for six months (during the
harvesting of sugar canes) a year and for the rest of the year,
petitioners are allowed to seek employment elsewhere.
Petitioners contend that the proviso in the second
paragraph of Art. 280 is applicable to their case, and that the
Labor Arbiter should have considered them regular by virtue of
said proviso.
Held:
12
13
14
15
Project employee:
2.
3.
4.
b.
c.
1.
2.
b.
c.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Seasonal Employee:
Hired for a specific period of time during the year, and may be
UNOD in UTOB
-
Rehired whenever
farmworkers)
their
services
are
required
(e.g.
16
Probationary Employee:
Hired for 6 months to determine qualification, or capacity as a
regular employee, though an ee can become regular right away
without going through probation
-
a.
b.
Casual Employee:
-
2.
17
3.
Remember that the one year rule in the Code applies only
to casual employment, not to project nor seasonal employees.
If a project employee is converted to a regular employee,
when can he reckon his conversion to regular employment? At the
start of the project? According to Sir, there is no clear answer to
that. Two possible options: One is to say that regular employment
starts from day one, because it can be analogous to the ground of
psychological incapacity under the Family Code. Theoretically it
should have existed from the very start, even if it manifests much
later. Hence, one theory is that from day one, the work done is
UNOD in UTOB, thus regular employee from day one.
After the one year, the employee has the right to demand
that he be rehired for succeeding undertakings. Conversely,
management can demand and compel the employee to report for
work for the next undertaking. If the employee is working
elsewhere, then the employer can deem the employee as refusing
to work, a ground for disciplinary action and termination.
Casual Employment:
hired again
6 months
vacancy
hired again
* The codal provisions are very important especially for bar
7 months
6 months
vacancy
regular
18
it was entered into by both parties negotiating on a more-orless equal bargaining position
19
20
(s)
RULE II
COVERAGE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Section 1. Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote
the free and responsible exercise of the right to selforganization through the establishment of a simplified
mechanism for the speedy registration of labor unions and
workers associations, determination of representation status
and resolution of inter/intra-union and other related labor
relations disputes. Only legitimate or registered labor unions
shall have the right to represent their members for
collective bargaining and other purposes. Workers'
associations shall have the right to represent their members
for purposes other than collective bargaining.
21
CASES
MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES:
Franklin Baker vs. Trajano, 157 SCRA 416 (1988)
A union representing 90 workers of the company filed for a
certification election. The company opposed saying that 76 of the
workers were managerial employees, citing instances wherein these
workers recommended the dismissal and hiring of several workers.
Held: The test of supervisory or managerial status depends on
whether a person possesses authority to act in the interest of his
employer in the matter specified in Article 212 (k) of the Labor Code
and Section 1 (m) of its Implementing Rules and whether such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature, but requires the
use of independent judgment. Thus, where such recommendatory
powers as in the case at bar, are subject to evaluation, review and
final action by the department heads and other higher executives of
22
the company, the same, although present, are not effective and not an
exercise of independent judgment as required by law.
Subject employees are not managerial employees because as
borne by the records, they do not participate in policy making but are
given ready policies to execute and standard practices to observe,
thus having little freedom of action.
The company opposed the petition for certification filed by the union
alleging that the union is not a legitimate labor organization as it
represents both supervisory and rank and file employees, and
submitting the names of 19 alleged supervisory employees.
Held: The record shows that the union is a legitimate labor
organization having been issued a certificate of registration. Under
prevailing rules, once a union acquires legitimate status as a labor
organization, it continues as such until its certificate of registration is
cancelled or revoked in an independent action for cancellation
Article 245 merely prescribes the requirements for eligibility
in joining a union and does not prescribe the grounds for the
cancellation of union registration. In the absence of any independent
petition for cancellation of registration filed against the respondent
labor union, it continues to be possessed with legal personality of a
legitimate labor organization.
(Note: The SPI and Toyota ruling are two irreconcilable decisions.
The case Tagaytay Highlands vs. Tagaytay Highlands Union,
January 22, 2003, which upholds the SPI Doctrine, reconciles the
conflict in the two cases.)
(The Court held that the union cannot, prior to purging itself
of its supervisory employee members, attain the status of a legitimate
labor organization. Not being one, it cannot possess the requisite
personality to file a petition for certification election.)
24
25
between the Union and Metrolab. Such a scenario, thus, gives rise to
a potential conflict between personal interests and their duty as
confidential employees to act for and in behalf of Metrolab. They do
not have to be union members to affect or influence either side.
26
27
Held: The character and legality of the mass actions which they
participated in have been passed upon by this Court as early as 1990
wherein it held that these mass actions were to all intents and
purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers sworn
duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.
MEMBERS OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO:
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54
It is clear that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain
from joining any union. The legal protection granted to such right to
refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law. Where a labor
union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of
which the employer may employ only members of the collective
bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members
of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their
jobs.
It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act, far from
infringing the constitutional provision on freedom of association,
upholds and reinforces it. It does prohibit the members of said
religious sects from affiliating with labor unions. It still leaves to
said members the liberty and the power to affiliate, or not to affiliate,
with labor unions. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the
members of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor
union, they can do so. If in deference and fealty to their religious
faith, they refuse to sign up, they can do so, the law does not coerce
them to join; neither does the law prohibit them from joining, and
neither may the employer or labor union compel them to join.
It is the employee who should decide for himself whether to join
such union or not but the law does not prohibit anyone from joining
unions or it does not favor anuy religion.
Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 162
SCRA 367
28
LECTURE
Is the right to self organization a constitutional right? Can it
be taken away by statute? The right to self organization is a
constitutional right. And it cannot be taken away by statute. The right
to self organization per se is a right of ALL employees, not just rankand-file or supervisory but even managerial employees. It is the right
to organization for purposes of collective bargaining which is limited
by the Labor Code. Hence, only rank and file and supervisory
employees may join, assist, or form labor organizations for purposes
of collective bargaining. Art. 243 cannot be read in isolation. It must
be read in conjunction with Art. 245.
What is the right to self-organization? It does not only cover
the right to organize for purposes of collective bargaining and for
mutual aid and protection, but also pursuant to Art. 246. Look at Art.
246, it defines what is the right of self-organization.. It extends to the
employees right to assert peaceful, concerted means. Hence, to
picket peacefully is part of the right to self-organization through
peaceful, concerted means, and it is beyond the jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
Who are managerial employees? Look at Art. 82. If one is a
member of a managerial staff by virtue of Art. 82 you are a
managerial employee? Insofar as one is entitled to certain benefits,
one can be considered a managerial employee excluding him from
such benefits, and in this case, managerial employee as defined by
Art. 82. But insofar as the right to self-organization is concerned, he
may be considered NOT a managerial employee because of the other
definition of a managerial employee under Art. 245. Because the
definition of a managerial employee should be applied strictly.
Theres a prohibition against managerial employees joining
or assisting in union organizing activities, because it is considered
interference by management. Because they lay down policies. Now
as for supervisory employees, they are allowed to form or join labor
organizations because their power is recommendatory. However it
must be effective recommendation. What does that mean? Since all
recommendations of supervisors go up to the manager for a final
29
30
LABOR CODE
And the manager must have the power to lay down policies
relating to labor relations.
31
CASES
Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs. Liberty Flou Mills, Inc.,
December 29, 1989
The petitioners, after organizing another union filed a certification
election among the rank-in-file employees, are terminated because o
a union shop clause1 in the CBA.
The SC affirmed the decision that such dismissal was valid
since the purpose of self-organization, collective bargaining,
negotiation, and peaceful assembly including the right to strike in
accordance with the law will not work if every worker were to
choose his own separate way instead of joining hi co-employees.
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54
It is clear that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain
from joining any union. The legal protection granted to such right to
refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of law. Where a labor
union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop, by virtue of
which the employer may employ only members of the collective
bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members
of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their
jobs.
32
employers concerning
employment.
(h)
terms
and
conditions
of
AS
AMENDED
BY
33
234 of the Labor Code and Rule III, Section 2-A of these
Rules.
34
(b) The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy
of the collective bargaining agreement within five (5)
days from its submission.
(c) The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer
for every collective bargaining agreement
- a registration fee of not less than one thousand
pesos (P1,000.00) or
- in any other amount as may be deemed appropriate
and necessary by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment
- for the effective and efficient administration of the
voluntary arbitration program.
Any amount collected under this provision shall
accrue to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file, and shall
undertake or assist in the publication, of all final decisions,
orders and awards of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, Regional Directors and the Commission.
ART. 234.
Requirements of registration. Any
applicant labor organization, association or group of unions
or workers
- shall acquire legal personality
- and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted
by law to legitimate labor organizations
- upon issuance of the certificate of registration
- based on the following requirements:
a. Fifty-pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the
principal address of the labor organization, the
minutes of the organizational meetings and the list
of the workers who participated in such meetings;
c. The names of all its members comprising at least
twenty 20% percent of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
35
ART. 235.
Action on application.
The Bureau shall act on all applications for registration
within thirty (30) days from filing.
All requisite documents and papers shall be
certified under oath by the Secretary or the treasurer
of the organization, as the case may be,
and attested to by its president.
ART. 236.
Denial of registration; appeal. The
decision of the Labor Relations Division in the regional office
denying registration may be appealed by the applicant union
to the Bureau within ten days from receipt of notice thereof.
ART. 239.
Grounds for cancellation of union
registration. The following shall constitute grounds for
cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation,
false statement
or fraud in
connection with the
adoption or ratification of the constitution and bylaws or amendments thereto,
the minutes of ratification,
and the list of members who took part in the
ratification;
ART. 237.
Additional requirements for federations
or national unions. Subject to Art. 238, if the applicant
for registration is a federation or a national union, it shall, in
addition to the requirements of the preceding Articles,
submit the following:
(a)
(b)
ART. 238.
(b)
(c)
(d)
36
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
ART. 240.
Equity of the incumbent.
All existing federations and national unions
which meet the qualifications of a legitimate labor
organization
and none of the grounds for cancellation
shall continue to maintain their existing affiliates regardless
of the nature of the industry and the location of the
affiliates.
RULE III
REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Section 1. Where to file. - Applications for registration of
independent labor unions, chartered locals, workers'
associations shall be filed with the Regional Office where the
applicant principally operates. It shall be processed by the
Labor Relations Division at the Regional Office in accordance
with Sections 2-A, 2-C, and 2-E of this Rule.
Applications for registration of federations, national unions
or workers' associations operating in more than one region
shall be filed with the Bureau or the Regional Offices, but
shall be processed by the Bureau in accordance with
Sections 2-B and 2-D of this Rule.
Section 2. Requirements for application. - A. The
application for registration of an independent labor union
shall be accompanied by the following documents:
1) the name of the applicant labor union, its principal
address, the name of its officers and their respective
addresses, approximate number of employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate, with a statement
that it is not reported as a chartered local of any federation
or national union;
2) the minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list
of employees who participated in the said meeting(s);
3) the name of all its members comprising at least 20% of
the employees in the bargaining unit;
4) the annual financial reports if the applicant has been in
existence for one or more years, unless it has not collected
37
38
39
Section 11. Requirements of notice of consolidation. The notice of consolidation of labor organizations shall be
accompanied by the following documents:
40
Section 5. Denial of Application/Return of Notice. Where the documents supporting the application for
registration/notice of change of name, affiliation, merger
and consolidation are incomplete or do not contain the
required certification and attestation, the Regional Office or
the Bureau shall, within five (5) days from receipt of the
application/notice, notify the applicant/labor organization
concerned in writing of the necessary requirements and
complete the same within thirty (30) days from receipt of
notice. Where the applicant/labor organization concerned
fails to complete the requirements within the time
prescribed, the application for registration shall be denied,
or the notice of change of name, affiliation, merger and
consolidation returned, without prejudice to filing a new
application or notice.
41
RULE V
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF
AND WORKERS ASSOCIATIONS
LABOR
UNIONS
CASES
Registration of Unions:
(b) annual financial reports within thirty (30) days after the
close of each fiscal year or calendar year;
2. The Med-Arbiter should look into the merits of the petition for
cancellation of a unions registration before issuing an order
calling for certification elections. Where the legal personality of
a union is seriously challenged, it would be more prudent for the
Med-Arbiter to grant the request for suspension of the
proceedings in the certification election case until the issue of
legality of the unions registration shall have been resolved.
42
Such accounting books can and must be submitted to the BLR, even
if they contain no detailed or extensive entries as yet. The point to be
stressed is that the applicant local or chapter must demonstrate to the
BLR that it is entitled to registered status because it has in place a
system for accounting for members contributions to its fund even
before it actually receives dues or fees from its members. The
controlling intention is to minimize the risk of fraud and diversion in
the course of the subsequent formation and growth of the Union
fund.
Pagpalain Haulers vs. Trajano, 310 SCRA 354
The Labor Code does not require the submission of books of account
on order for a labor organization to be registered as a legitimate
labor organization. This requirement is found only in the Omnibus
Rules (Book V) implementing the Labor Code, which subsequently
was amended by DO9. Department Order No. 9, Series of 1997,
reduced the requirements needed to be submitted, and has done away
with the submission of books of account as a requisite of registration.
But as provided by Arts. 241 (h) and (j), a labor organization must
still maintain books of account, but it need not submit them as a
requisite for registration.
Local Unions and Federations:
43
welfare upon the terms laid down in the agreement which brought it
into existence.
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 THEU is NATUs affiliate at the time of the
registration. It does not mean that the said local union cannot stand
on its own. Neither can it be interpreted to mean that it cannot pursue
its own interests independently of the federation. A local union owes
its creation and continued existence to the will of its members and
not to the federation to which it belongs.
When the local union withdrew from the old federation to
join a new federation, it was merely exercising its primary right to
labor organization for the effective enhancement and protection of
common interests. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the
federations constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a
local may sever its relationship with its parent.
There is nothing in the constitution of the NATU or in the
constitution of the THEU-NATU that the THEU was expressly
forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation. The alleged noncompliance of the local union with the provision in the NATU
Constitution requiring the service of three months notice of intention
to withdraw did not produce the effect of nullifying the disaffiliation
for the following grounds: firstly, NATU was not even a legitimate
labor organization, it appearing that it was not registered at that time
with the Department of Labor, and therefore did not possess and
acquire, in the first place, the legal personality to enforce its
constitution and laws, much less the right and privilege under the
Labor Code to organize and affiliate chapters or locals within its
group, and secondly, the act of non-compliance with the procedure
on withdrawal is premised on purely technical grounds which cannot
rise above the fundamental right of self-organization.
Volkschel Labor Union vs. BLR, 137 SCRA 42 [1985]
Petitioner was affiliated with ALUMETAL. Both unions, using the
name Volkschel Labor Union-ALUMETAL, jointly entered into a
CBA with respondent companies. One of the subjects dealt with was
44
validly withdrawn from its affiliation with the parent association and
which continued to represent the employees of an employer is
entitled to the check-off dues under a CBA.
ANGLO-KMU vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa, 258 SCRA 371
ANGLOs local chapter disaffiliated from ANGLO on the ground
that the latter has committed acts inimical to the interests of the
chapter. ANGLO refused to honor the disaffiliation on the ground
that the CBA is still existing, and the freedom period had not yet set
in.
Held: Pursuant to the right to self-organization, the chapter may
disaffiliate any time from the mother union. This right may not be
defeated on the ground that there was noncompliance with the
procedural rules to disaffiliate. Also, it was clearly shown that
majority of the union members in the chapter supported such
decision. The charge that ANGLO is guilty of acts inimical to the
chapters interests is not rebutted.
MSMG-UWP vs. Ramos, GR 113907, February 28, 2000
An intra-union dispute arose out of disputes from the election of
union officers. Several officers were dismissed from the union for
acts of disloyalty and inimical to the interest and violative of the
constitution and by-laws of the union. Since the union has a closedshop agreement in the CBA, the company terminated the ousted
union members.
Held: While a company may validly dismiss employees expelled by
the union for disloyalty under the union security clause of the CBA,
the dismissal should not be done hastily and summarily thereby
eroding the employees right to due process, self-organization and
security of tenure. The enforcement of union-security clauses is
authorized by law provided such enforcement is not characterized by
arbitrariness and always with due process. There must always be a
separate hearing conducted by the company before the expelled
union members are dismissed by the company.
45
OF
REGISTRATION
-
ART. 238.
Cancellation of registration, appeal.
The certificate of registration of any legitimate labor
organization, whether national or local,
shall be cancelled by the Bureau
if it has reason to believe,
after due hearing,
that the said labor organization no longer meets one
or more of the requirements herein prescribed.
ART. 239.
Grounds for cancellation of union
registration. The following shall constitute grounds for
cancellation of union registration:
(b) Misrepresentation,
false statement
or fraud in
connection with the
adoption or ratification of the constitution and bylaws or amendments thereto,
the minutes of ratification,
and the list of members who took part in the
ratification;
(b)
(c)
or
fraud
in
together
with
the
list
of
the
elected/appointed
officers
and
their
addresses
within thirty (30) days from election;
newly
postal
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
46
CANCELLATION
OF
ORGANIZATIONS
REGISTRATION
OF
LABOR
47
Cases:
Progressive Development Corp. v Secretary of Labor, 271 SCRA
593
3. The propriety of a labor organizations registration could be
assailed directly through cancellation proceedings in accordance
with Articles 238 ad 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly by
challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for
certification election.
4. The Med-Arbiter should look into the merits of the petition for
cancellation of a unions registration before issuing an order
calling for certification elections. Where the legal personality of
a union is seriously challenged, it would be more prudent for the
48
LECTURE
Labor Organizations:
Workers associations are a type of organization for the
purpose of self-organization but not for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Only for mutual aid and protection. So we have workers
association on the one hand, and labor organizations on the other
hand.
Now we concentrate on labor organizations. What are the different
types?
Plant level organizations:
Independent unions
Affiliates
Local/Chapters
National Unions/Federations
Industry Unions
49
not require it. But by virtue of D.O. 9, Books of Account were not
required to be submitted anymore. But books of Account are still
subject to inspection by the Department when warranted.
Article 237 requires proof of affiliation of at least ten
chapters for a federation. Whats wrong with this? In the first place,
no federation can become a federation without locals or chapters.
The only way to interpret this provision is it refers to independently
registered unions who decide to form a federation as affiliates. You
cannot have locals/chapters that create a federation, you can only
have a federation creating a local/chapter. The only situation also
where a federation can be created by a local/chapter is when two
federations merge or form one federation.
E. CONDITIONS
MEMBERS
OF
MEMBERSHIP
AND
RIGHTS
OF
LABOR CODE
ART. 241.
Rights and conditions of membership in
a labor organization. The following are the rights and
conditions of membership in a labor organization:
(a) - No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees
shall be required of the members of a
legitimate labor organization nor
shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and
forfeiture be imposed;
(c) The members shall be entitled:
- to full and detailed reports
- from their officers and representatives
- of all financial transactions
- as provided for in the constitution and by-laws of the
organization;
51
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
52
(2)
(3)
(p)
Art. 274.
Visitorial power. The Secretary of Labor
and Employment or his duly authorized representative is
hereby empowered
a)
to inquire into the financial activities of legitimate
labor organizations
53
OTHER
association
officers;
(c) audit/accounts examination of union or workers'
association
funds;
(d) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
(e) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
(f) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-acceptance for
union
membership;
(g) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion of union
and
workers
association
officers
and
members;
(h)
validity/invalidity
of
voluntary
recognition;
(i) opposition to application for union and CBA registration;
(j) violations of or disagreements over any provision in a
union or workers' association constitution and by-laws;
(k) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor
organizations and collective bargaining agreements;
(l) violations of the rights and conditions of union or
workers'
association
membership;
(m) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations,
except interpretation of collective bargaining agreements;
(n) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to
self-organization,
union
membership
and
collective
bargaining (1) between and among legitimate labor organizations;
(2) between and among members of a union or workers'
association.
Section 2. Coverage. - Other related labor relations
disputes shall include any conflict between a labor union and
the employer or any individual, entity or group that is not a
labor organization or workers' association. This includes: (1)
cancellation of registration of unions and workers
associations; and (2) a petition for interpleader.
Section 3. Effects of the filing/pendency of
inter/intra-union and other related labor relations
disputes. - The rights, relationships and obligations of the
parties litigants against each other and other parties-ininterest prior to the institution of the petition shall continue
54
55
Docket Section of the Bureau shall allow the party filing the
complaint or petition to determine the Med-Arbiter or
Hearing Officer assigned to the case by means of a raffle.
Where there is only one Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer in
the region, the raffle shall be dispensed with and the
complaint or petition shall be assigned to him/her.
Section 8. Notice of preliminary conference. Immediately after the raffle of the case or receipt of the
complaint or petition, the same shall be transmitted to the
Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer, as the case may be, who
shall in the same instance prepare the notice for preliminary
conference and cause the service thereof upon the party
filing the petition. The preliminary conference shall be
scheduled within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint
or petition.
Within three (3) days from receipt of the complaint or
petition, the Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer, as the case may
be, shall cause the service of summons upon the
respondent(s) named therein, directing him/her to file
his/her answer/comment on the complaint or petition on or
before the scheduled preliminary conference and to appear
before the Med-Arbiter or Hearing Officer on the scheduled
preliminary conference.
56
57
58
59
60
61
Section 2. Transmittal of records; central registry. The Labor Relations Division of the Regional Offices shall,
within forty-eight (48) hours from issuance of a certificate
of creation of chartered locals or certificate of registration of
labor organizations and collective bargaining, transmit to
the Bureau a copy of such certificates accompanied by a
copy of the documents supporting registration.
The Labor Relations Division of the Regional Office shall also
transmit to the Bureau a copy of every final decision
canceling or revoking the legitimate status of a labor
organization or collective bargaining agreement, indicating
therein the date when the decision became final.
In cases of chartering and affiliation or compliance with the
reporting requirements under Rule V, the Regional Office
shall transmit within two (2) days from receipt thereof the
original set of documents to the Bureau, retaining one set of
documents for its file.
RULE XX
LABOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Section 1. Labor education of workers and employees.
- The Department shall develop, promote and implement
appropriate labor education and research programs on the
rights and responsibilities of workers and employers.
It shall be the duty of every legitimate labor organization to
implement a labor education program for its members on
their rights and obligations as unionists and as employees.
Section 2. Mandatory conduct of seminars. - Subject to
the provisions of Article 241, it shall be mandatory for every
legitimate labor organization to conduct seminars and
similar activities on existing labor laws, collective
agreements, company rules and regulations and other
relevant matters. The union seminars and similar activities
GOVERNING LAW
Oca vs. Trajano, 200 SCRA 399
It is a rule that the Constitution and By-laws of an organization serve
as a contract that binds its members. The presence of a quorum
during petitioner Oca's and respondent Dinglasan's respective Board
meetings is questionable. Moreover, petitioner Oca's Board Meeting
and subsequent Convention were tainted with invalidity. The call for
"a special Board meeting to fix the special convention" made by the
National Secretary, Johnny Oca, was anomalous since only the
National President of the Union was empowered to call a special
Board Meeting, "at his own initiative or upon petition of at least one
fourth (1/4) of the Board members." Considering the anomalous
"call" for a special meeting made by the National Secretary, matters
taken up during said special meeting, such as the calling of a national
convention, are likewise tainted.
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS:
Ferrer vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410
62
intervals when the bus is waiting for passengers, and the time
consumed on minor repairs of the engine and other parts of the bus.
It therefore prayed the court to fix the compensable hours of work of
the drivers and conductors, members of said union, according to the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 444, and to order Halili to pay
the drivers and conductors the compensable hours of work
previously rendered by them from October 1, 1956 up to the filing of
the petition.
The SC held that there can be no disagreement here that
what the members of the respondent union claim is the payment of
overtime wages for work rendered by them during the hours
deducted by the predecessor of herein petitioner from their daily
compensable working time in the company's payrolls, in violation of
the Eight-Hour Labor Law he deducted from the working hours of
the drivers and conductors, members of respondent union, the time
spent for taking the buses from the carbarn and filling it with gas, oil
or water; the interval for waiting for passengers; and the repair of the
engine and other parts of the bus in case of breakdown.
REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
Litton Mills Employees vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 167 SCRA 804
As to the impeachment of a union officer, Section 2, Article XV of
the petitioner-union's Constitution and By-Laws provides the
procedures to be followed. It clearly appears that the procedure was
not followed by the petitioners when they impeached Umali. To be
sure, there was difficulty on the part of the petitioners in complying
with the required procedure for impeachment, considering that the
petition to impeach had to be addressed to the Chairman of the
Executive Board of the Union, and that the majority membership
which would decide on the impeachment had to be convened only
upon call of the Chairman of the Executive Board who, in the case at
bar, happened to be respondent Umali himself.
Nevertheless, despite the practical difficulties in complying with the
said procedure, petitioners should have shown substantial
63
LECTURE
64
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
65
(g)
(h)
(i)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(b)
66
CASES
Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Association vs. Insular Life
Assurance Co., 37 SCRA 244
The company sent letters to each striker stating its recognition of the
employees right to strike, but should the latter wish to return to work,
they may do so. The letter listed benefits for those who wished to
work. Some were persuaded by the letter, but others continued with
the strike. There were also occasions where management personnel
tried to break through the picket lines. The company also offered free
coffee as bribe to abandon the strike. There was also discrimination
in selecting which employees were rehired.
The employers are guilty of ULP. The seemingly innocent
letters, when taken together with all the other acts clearly show the
intent to interfere with the right to collective bargaining. The
incentives in the letters as well as threats of reprisals upon failure to
comply cannot be read otherwise than union busting. Such acts
undermine all that the union wishes to do for the benefit of the
employees.
67
68
OF
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS:
company still demurred and explained it was not taking sides and
that its stand was prompted merely by "humane" considerations,
springing from the belief that petitioner had resigned from the union
without realizing its effect upon his employment. And, as the union
reiterated its demand, the company notified petitioner that it had no
other alternative but to terminate his employment, and dismissed him
from the service, although with "regret". Under the circumstances,
the company was not "unfair" to petitioner.
United Restaurors Employees and Labor Union vs. Torres, 26
SCRA 435
When the Union struck and picketed on January 16, 1965, it
might have been true that the Union commanded a majority of Sulo's
employees. Without need of certification, it could, under such
circumstances, conclude a collective bargaining agreement with
Sulo. But it is not disputed that on, October 4, 1965, i.e., shortly after
this case was filed on September 18, 1965, a consent election was
held. Not controverted, too, is the fact that, in that consent election,
SELU defeated the Union, petitioner herein. Because of this SELU
was certified to the Sulo management as the "collective bargaining
representative of the employees . . . for collective bargaining
purposes as regards wages, hours of work, rates of pay and/or such
other terms and conditions of employment allowed them by law."
Under the circumstances, the issue as to the propriety of the
injunction issued to restrain picketing has become moot and
academic.
The SC held that the Union which has become a minority
union can no longer demand collective bargaining. Said right
properly belongs to SELU, which commands the majority. By law,
the right to be exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union
"designated or selected" for such purpose "by the majority of the
employees" in the unit concerned. SELU has the right as well as the
obligation to hear, voice out and seek remedies for the grievances of
all Sulo employees, including employees who are members of
LECTURE
What is ULP? It is a violation of the right to selforganization. Item (a) of Art. 248 is an all-encompassing provision-to
interfere, restrain or coerce the right to self-organization. Does that
mean we can do away with subparagraphs (b) to (i)? Are all
discriminations ULP? How can discrimination refer to the right to
self-organization?
ULP may be done whether one is a union member or is not a
union member. But remember violation of a CBA is ULP only if it is
a gross violation of the economic provisions. For management to be
guilty of ULP it is not necessary that the interference, coercion or
restraint be a successful attempt. Remember the Insular case.
Management was not successful.
What is the test of ULP? Some acts may in fact be innocent
in nature. Like in the Insular case. Remember the doctrine
TOTALITY OF CONDUCT. Look at the acts and circumstances as a
whole, not just the single act. In order to show managements
intention, one must establish that there is a tendency to restrain,
coerce or interfere with the right to self-organization, in the absence
of any clear case of actual interference, restrain or coerce. That
management intended to R/I/C. By looking at the totality of the
situation and the circumstances, it may be shown that ULP is
committed.
So, in order to establish ULP, show the totality of the
situation and show the link between the act itself and the employees
right to self-organization. If the act has a tendency to R/I/C, then in
all probability, considering all the circumstances, management
wanted to R/I/C. The act is ULP.
70
Mabeza clarifies that. As the Court held there, even without any
union or union-organizing activity, the employer CAN commit ULP.
For instance, is when an employee is dismissed because he asserts
his rights. Art. 248 aims to cover any threat of preventing the start of
self-organizing activities, specifically when the employees are on the
start of a consciousness as to their rights and take initial steps to
assert these rights. The Court considered these ULP, because these
were acts of nipping the bud. The Mabeza case harmonizes/relates
Art. 248 (f) with 248 (a). Hence, (a) also encompasses (f) = ULP.
Now, Art 248 (f) applies only when the employee testifies
against the employer, unless he is dismissed for refusing to testify in
favor of management.
Is the enumeration under Art. 248 exclusive? Actually, it is
immaterial to say so. Because of the all-encompassing proviso of 248
(a). Can (a) then be left alone as a definition of ULP? Yes! The other
subparagraphs are illustrations of (a). However, the other
subparagraphs are good illustrations, to give us a basis for conclusion
that the specifically stated act is ULP, which is hard to determine
looking at (a) alone. (a) is too broad. So if the act does not fall under
(b) (i), but may still fall under (a), it is considered an act of ULP.
POST-MIDTERMS
REVIEW OF THE MIDTERMS QUESTIONS:
Last question
The CBA is not registered hence the legal personality of the
union is extinguished. But the CBA is effective even without the
exclusive bargaining agent. The legal personality of the unionexclusive bargaining agent has nothing to do with the effectivity of
the CBA. The provision in the Omnibus Rules must be followed
strictly. So, in this case, since there is no exclusive bargaining
agent/representative to act in behalf of the employees, the employees
must take into their own hands the necessary measures to enact the
71
CBA provisions. For instance, when they seek to file a ULP case
against the employer for nonobservance of the CBAs economic
provisions, they must do so through a class suit with each employee
in the bargaining unit made a party. They cannot use the employers
act as a ground for strike either, because only a legitimate labor
union may conduct a strike.
What can the local/chapter do once the mother union loses
its personality? They can register as an independent union to acquire
legitimate personality. But prior to issuance of the certificate of
registration, the union has no legitimate personality. Thats why the
Rules give that leeway period for the local/chapter to register as an
independent union when the mother union loses its legal personality.
Question 1
My intended answer is its not ULP. It is merely a correction
of an unjust situation. Can you take it to punish the employer for
that? The intention may have been clear that employer wanted to
avoid the formation of a union. From a business perspective, the
formation of a union is costly. The only question at this point is
should the employer be punished for the correction of a wrong
situation, even though the deepest intent was to avoid any possibility
of formation of a union.
72
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
73
LABOR CODE
ART. 231.
Registry of unions and file of collective
agreements.
The Bureau shall keep a registry of
legitimate labor organizations.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file of
all collective bargaining agreements
and other related agreements
and records of settlement of labor disputes,
and copies of orders, and decisions of voluntary arbitrators.
The file shall be open and accessible
to interested parties
under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment,
provided that no specific information submitted in confidence
shall be disclosed unless:
- authorized by the Secretary,
- or when it is at issue in any judicial litigation
-or when public int\erest or national security so requires.
74
RULE I
DEFINITION OF TERMS
CASES
75
76
accordance with the law will not work if every worker were to
choose his own separate way instead of joining hi co-employees.
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Associatio of Employees and
Faculty of Letran, 340 SCRA 587
Petitioner accused the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The issue in this
case is whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by
refusing to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the
ongoing negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) upon mere information that a petition for certification has
been filed by another legitimate labor organization.
Held: It is noteworthy in Art. 255, it is required that both parties of
the performance of the mutual obligation to meet and convene
promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement. Undoubtedly, respondent Association of
Employees and Faculty of Letran (AEFL) (hereinafter, "union") lived
up to this requisite when it presented its proposals for the CBA to
petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner devised ways and means in
order to prevent the negotiation.
Petitioner's utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union 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 by the union, petitioner still had not made any counterproposals. This inaction on the part of petitioner prompted the union
to file its second notice of strike on March 13, 1996. Petitioner could
only offer a feeble explanation that the Board of Trustees had not yet
convened to discuss the matter as its excuse for failing to file its
reply. This is a clear violation of Article 250 of the Labor Code
governing the procedure in collective bargaining
San Miguel Corp. Employees Union-PTGWO v Confesor, 262
SCRA 81
SMC was restructured. Two of its divisions were turned into separate
distinct corporations. The union insists on uniting the employees of
the 2 new corporations into one bargaining unit. The Court ruled that
the employees from the new corporations constituted separate
bargaining units for the following reasons:
1. The workers are employed by two different employers as
a consequence of incorporation (separate juridical
personality)
2. The members of a bargaining unit must have mutual
interests. Considering the spin-off, the companies will
consequently have their respective and distinctive
concerns in terms of nature of work, wages, hours of
work and other conditions of employment.
MERALCO Cases
Facts: A CBA was entered into with a term of 5 years. Nearing its 3 rd
year of effectivity, the parties met to renegotiate. The remaining 2
years of the CBA, which is the subject of the renegotiation in this
case, was for the period 1 December 1995 to 30 November 1997.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173
Nearing the 3rd year of the effectivity of the CBA, the parties met to
renegotiate. Unable to come to an agreement during the
renegotiation, and there existing the imminence of a strike, the
Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The
Secretary resolved the issue through an order setting forth the
approved economic demands. The effective date of the Secretarys
order is in question.
Held: The date of effectivity shall be as agreed upon by the parties.
The law requires that a CBA be renegotiated within 3 years from its
execution. If there is no agreement reached within 6 months from the
expiry of the 3 years that follow the execution of the CBA, the law
expressly gives the parties, and not anybody else, the discretion to fix
the effectivity of the agreement. In the absence of a new CBA, the
parties must maintain the status quo and must continue in full force
77
and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a
new agreement is reached.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172
This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision in the
immediately preceding case.
Held: CBA arbitral awards granted after six months from the
expiration of the last CBA shall retroact to such time agreed upon by
both employer and the employees or their union. In the absence of
such agreement, the award shall retroact to the first day after the 6month period following the last day of the CBA, should there be one,
or, in the absence of a CBA, the Secretarys determination of the date
of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral
awards shall control.
MERALCO v Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172
This is a Motion for Partial Modification of the decision in the
immediately preceding case.
Held: The arbitral award shall retroact to the first day after the 6month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA.
The CBA in this case expired on 1 December 1997. The first day
after the 6-month period is 1 June 1996. The CBA shall be effective
from 1 June 1996 to 31 May 1998 (effective for 2 years).
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service Inc. v RoldanConfesor, 272 SCRA 161
The signing of the agreement is not determinative of the question
whether the agreement was entered into within the 6 months from the
expiry of the previous agreement. The point of reckoning is the
meeting of the minds. (Marlon: prove meeting of the minds through
the minutes)
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing-UWP vs.
NLRC, 7 September 1998
The union claims the benefits of an agreement allegedly entered into
during the negotiation, as per the minutes, but was not incorporated
in the CBA as written.
Held: The union may not validly claim that the proposal embodied
in the minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA. The CBA is
the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by
the law.
Note: The minutes is determinative only of the moment when there
was a meeting of the minds. As to what was particularly agreed
upon, it is the CBA as written which shall control.
Rivera vs. Espiritu, 374 SCRA 351
New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. v NLRC, 328 SCRA 404
Until a new CBA has been executed by and between the parties, they
are duty bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force
and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement. The
law does not provide for any exception or qualification as to which
of the economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain
force and effect. Therefore, it must be understood as encompassing
all the terms and conditions in said agreement.
Further, when a CBA is entered into by a union representing the
employees and the employer, even non-member employees are
entitled to the benefits of the agreement.
B. Jurisdictional Requirements:
78
in good faith
negotiate
3. Demand to bargain.
LECTURE
79
80
2003- the first year of the CBA. Will that be good until January 24,
2007? Since it is a renegotiation, it is a new agreement. It will be up
to the parties if they choose to make the new agreement subsist up to
January 24, 2007. It is entirely up to them to decide the term of
effectivity of the CBAs non-representation provisions. BUT despite
whatever term they agree upon, they have to renegotiate in by
January 25, 2006 within three years from the last renegotiation and
execution of the CBA.
The overlapping of the terms in representation and nonrepresentation is quite complicated. In the end of the fifth year, there
may be a new bargaining representative, but the non-representation
provisions may have been extended beyond the fifth year. The
overlapping according to jurisprudence is to promote industrial
peace. The new representative must respect the non-representation
provisions. So, from 1997 to 1998, it is considered the trial period,
an adjustment period. The new agent cannot demand negotiations
kasi may one year pa. Mgt. wont negotiate as well. But this scenario
does not promote industrial peace. The new agent of course is a rival
union and wont be happy with the CBA entered into between
management and the old agent who is a rival union. In fact the CBA
is always an issue in certification electionsPalpak naman ang
CBA na yan.
Thats why unions/bargaining agents seek to avoid this
scenario-sinasabay nila ang effectivity ng non-representation
provisions sa representation aspect ng CBA. Ginagawang parehong 5
years. In fact I have not seen a CBA that has extended its nonrepresentation aspects beyond five years. On managements side,
why will they agree to extend the term of the CBA beyond the
authority of the bargaining agent?
Now, the parties may agree that the modified provisions take
effect until 2009-even beyond the period of representation. Then the
bargaining agents status is challenged by a rival union. Such CBA
will still be effective, and if the rival union wins as the new
bargaining agent, they have to respect the CBA. The new agent can
demand renegotiation but it may take effect only after 2009.
81
1. For example the decision became final June 12, 2002-within the
6 month period. In this case the law automatically operates so the
new CBA retroacts to the date of the old CBAs expiry.
2. If the decision became final beyond the six month period, it
retroacts automatically to the end of the six month period.
Generally, the Secretary of Labor can decree retroactivity. But
the Court said the retroactivity should only operate the day after
the six month period. So the Secretary can make it retroact only
starting July 25, 2002 or beyond such date. This ruling of the
Court misinterpreted Art. 253-A, thinking that when the law
talks of such date in the last phrase of the Code, refers to the
six month period. Erroneous! Such date refers to the date of
expiry of the old CBA. So I believe there is no reason for the
Court to limit the Secretarys power.
The first decision was the good decision-it was congruent
with the codal provision stating that only the parties can agree to
retroactivity, so the Secretary cannot decree retroactivity if the
parties do not as well. But this was reversed in the second Meralco
case. This case has no basis to say that the decision retroacts
automatically to the end of the six month period. The hard part is an
arbitral award can supplant the parties agreement insofar as
retroactivity is concerned. So the Secretary can decree retroactivity
but his freedom to choose the period when it retroacts is limited by
the decision.
C. BARGAINING UNIT
OMNIBUS RULES, BOOK V AS AMENDED BY D.O. 40
(d) "Bargaining Unit" refers to a group of employees sharing
mutual interests within a given employer unit, comprised of
all or less than all of the entire body of employees in the
employer unit or any specific occupational or geographical
grouping within such employer unit.
82
CASES
San Miguel Corporation v Laguesma, 236 SCRA 595
The regular sales personnel (55 in all) of Magnolia Dairy Products,
employed in different sales offices in the North Luzon Area, wish to
form one bargaining unit. The company insists that each of the sales
offices in should be considered as a separate bargaining unit so that
negotiations would be more expeditious.
Held: The Court allowed all the employees to be part of a single
bargaining unit saying that it is not the convenience of the employer
that constituted the determinative factor in forming an appropriate
bargaining unit (and 55 na nga lang sila).
The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate
collective bargaining unit are:
1. The will of the employees (Globe Doctrine)
2. Affinity and unity of the employees interest (Substantial
Mutual Interest Rule)
3. Prior collective bargaining history
4. Similarity of employment status
However, the court has ruled that prior collective
bargaining history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the
determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
The test of grouping is commonality or mutuality of interest.
University of the Philippines vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451
A "bargaining unit" has been 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,
83
84
Court stressed that there was nothing to prevent the employer from
voluntarily giving the employees some financial assistance on an ex
gratia basis. Returning to the present case, although the second
circumstance exists, respondent Federico severed his employment
relationship with petitioners when he tendered his "letter of
resignation" on 16 September 1991 or prior to the effectivity of R.A.
7641. In fact, the issue before public respondents was not the
existence of employee-employer relationship between the parties;
rather, considering the cessation of his service, whether he was
entitled to monetary awards. On the authority of CJC, private
respondent therefore cannot seek the beneficial provision of R.A.
7641 and must settle for the financial assistance of P10,000.00
offered by petitioners and directed to be released to him by the Labor
Arbiter.
International School Alliance of Educators v Quisumbing, 333
SCRA 13
The International School employs 2 kinds of teachers: foreign hires
and local hires. The foreign hires enjoy greater benefits than local
hires. The issue is whether local hires and foreign hires could be part
of a single bargaining unit.
Held: Foreign hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as
local hires. It does not appear that foreign hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped with local hires. The collective bargaining
history of the school also shows that these groups were always
treated separately. Foreign hires have limited tenure; local hires have
security of tenure. Although foreign hires perform similar functions
under the same working conditions as the local hires, they are
accorded certain benefits not accorded to local hires. These benefits,
such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and home leave
travel allowance, are reasonably related to their status as foreign
hires, and justify their exclusion from the bargaining unit.
De La Salle University v De La Salle University Employees
Association, 330 SCRA 363
The employees of DLSU and the College of St. Benilde wish to form
one bargaining unit.
Held: DLSU and CSB, although affiliated, are two separate juridical
personalities. The employees of the two schools are effectively
employees of two different employers and thus cannot form one
bargaining unit. There is no evidence in this case to justify the
piercing of the veil of corporate fiction.
D. BARGAINING UNIT, BARGAINING
CERTIFICATION ELECTION PROCEEDINGS
AGENT
AND
LABOR CODE
ART. 255.
Exclusive bargaining representation and
workers participation in policy and decision-making.
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
employee 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.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making
processes of the establishment where they are employed
insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights,
benefits and welfare.
For this purpose, workers and employers may form
labor-management
councils:
Provided,
That
the
representatives of the workers in such labor-management
councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all
employees in said establishment.
85
ART. 256.
Representation
issue
in
organized
establishments. In organized establishments, when a
verified petition questioning the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent is filed before the Department
of Labor and Employment within the sixty-day period before
the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement: the
Med-Arbiter shall automatically order an election by secret
ballot when the verified petition is supported by:
1) the written consent
2) of at least twenty-five percent (25%)
3) of all the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit,
to ascertain the will of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit.
4) To have a valid election, at least a majority of all
eligible voters in the unit must have cast their 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.
When an election
1) which provides for three or more choices
2) results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid
votes cast,
3) a run-off election shall be conducted between the
labor unions receiving the two highest number of
votes:
4) Provided, That the total number of votes for all
contending unions is at least fifty percent (50%) of the
number of votes cast.
At the expiration of the freedom period, the
employer shall continue to recognize the majority status of
the incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
certification is filed.
ART. 257.
Petitions in unorganized establishments.
In any establishment where there is no certified
bargaining agent, a certification election shall automatically
86
RULE VI
DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATION STATUS
Section 1. Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote free trade
unionism through expeditious procedures governing the choice of an
exclusive bargaining agent. The determination of such exclusive
bargaining agent is a non-litigious proceeding and, as far as
practicable, shall be free from technicalities of law and procedure,
provided only that in every case, the exclusive bargaining agent
enjoys the majority support of all the employees in the bargaining
unit.
Section 2. Determination of representation status; modes. - The
determination of an exclusive bargaining agent shall be through
voluntary recognition in cases where there is only one legitimate
labor organization operating within the bargaining unit, or through
certification, run-off or consent election as provided in these Rules.
RULE VII
87
VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
Section 1. When and where to file. - In unorganized
establishments with only one legitimate labor organization, the
employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of such
a union. Within thirty (30) days from such recognition, the employer
and union shall submit a notice of voluntary recognition with the
Regional Office which issued the recognized labor union's certificate
of registration or certificate of creation of a chartered local.
Section 2. Requirements for voluntary recognition. - The notice
of voluntary recognition shall be accompanied by the original copy
and two (2) duplicate copies of the following documents:
(a) a joint statement under oath of voluntary recognition attesting to
the fact of voluntary recognition;
(b) certificate of posting of the joint statement of voluntary recognition
for fifteen (15) consecutive days in at least two (2) conspicuous
places in the establishment or bargaining unit where the union seeks
to operate;
(c) the approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit,
accompanied by the names of those who support the voluntary
recognition comprising at least a majority of the members of the
bargaining unit; and
(d) a statement that the labor union is the only legitimate labor
organization operating within the bargaining unit.
All accompanying documents of the notice for voluntary recognition
shall be certified under oath by the employer representative and
president of the recognized labor union.
Section 3. Action on the Notice. - Where the notice of voluntary
recognition is sufficient in form, number and substance and where
there is no other registered labor union operating within the
bargaining unit concerned, the Regional Office, through the Labor
Relations Division shall, within ten (10) days from receipt of the
notice, record the fact of voluntary recognition in its roster of
legitimate labor unions and notify the labor union concerned.
Where the notice of voluntary recognition is insufficient in form,
number and substance, the Regional Office shall, within the same
period, notify the labor union of its findings and advise it to comply
with the necessary requirements. Where neither the employer nor
the labor union failed to complete the requirements for voluntary
recognition under Section 2 of this Rule within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the advisory, the Regional Office shall return the notice for
voluntary recognition together with all its accompanying documents
without prejudice to its re-submission.
Section 4. Effect of recording of fact of voluntary recognition. From the time of recording of voluntary recognition, the recognized
labor union shall enjoy the rights, privileges and obligations of an
existing bargaining agent of all the employees in the bargaining unit.
Entry of voluntary recognition shall bar the filing of a petition for
certification election by any labor organization for a period of one (1)
year from the date of entry of voluntary recognition. Upon expiration
of this one-year period, any legitimate labor organization may file a
petition for certification election in the same bargaining unit
represented by the voluntarily recognized union, unless a collective
bargaining agreement between the employer and voluntarily
recognized labor union was executed and registered with the
Regional Office in accordance with Rule XVII of these Rules.
RULE VIII
CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Section 1. Who may file. -Any legitimate labor organization may file
a petition for certification election.
88
89
90
91
92
RULE IX
CONDUCT OF CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Section 1. Raffle of the case. - Within twenty-four (24) hours from
receipt of the notice of entry of final judgment granting the conduct of
a certification election, the Regional Director shall cause the raffle of
the case to an Election Officer who shall have control of the preelection conference and election proceedings.
Section 2. Pre-election conference. - Within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of the assignment for the conduct of a certification
election, the Election Officer shall cause the issuance of notice of
pre-election conference upon the contending unions and the
employer, which shall be scheduled within ten (10) days from receipt
of the assignment.
The pre-election conference shall set the mechanics for the election
and shall determine, among others, the following:
(a) date, time and place of the election, which shall
not be later than forty-five (45) days from the date of
the first pre-election conference, and shall be on a
regular working day and within the employer's
premises, unless circumstances require otherwise;
93
94
95
CASES
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v Laguesma, 223 SCRA
454
PT&Ts rank and file employees are already represented by a
certified bargaining agent. The supervisory employees seek to be
represented.
Held: Since no certified bargaining agent represents the supervisory
employees, PT&T is deemed an unorganized establishment with
respect to such supervisory employees even if the company is
already deemed and organized establishment with respect to ots rank
and file employees are already organized.
An employer has no standing to question a certification
election since it is the sole concern of the workers, unless the former
filed the certification election itself pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor
Code.
Alu vs. Trajano, 172 SCRA 49
The sole issue is whether or not public respondent committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering a
96
in the unit must have cast their 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. When an election
which provides for three or more choices results in no choice
receiving a majority of the valid cast, a run-off election shall be
conducted between the choices receiving the two highest number of
votes."
Philippine Fruits and Vegetables Industries, Inc. v Torres, 211
SCRA 95
A certification election was conducted in the PFVII. Employees who
were already dismissed, albeit illegally, took part in the elections.
Held: Employees who have been improperly laid off but who have a
present, unabandoned rights to or expectation of re-employment, are
eligible to vote in the certification elections. Thus, if the dismissal is
under question, the employees concerned are still qualified to vote.
PVFII filed a protest with the Med-Arbiter. It is argued that the
protest was filed beyond the reglamentary. To determine the
timeliness of the filing of the protest, it must be determined when the
close of election proceedings occur.
Held: The close of election proceedings refers to that period from
the closing of the polls to the counting of the ballots and the
tabulation of the votes. It does not include the period for the final
determination of challenged votes and canvass thereof which could
take a very long period.
Samahang Manggagawa ng Permex v Secretary of Labor, 286
SCRA 692
An employer does not have the power to declare a union as the
exclusive representative of its workers for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Direct certification (by the employer) has been
discontinued as a method of selecting the exclusive bargaining
agents of workers.
97
99
100
CASES
NACUSIP-TUCP vs. Trajano, 208 SCRA 18
The issue in this case is whether or not a petition for certification
election may be filed during the pendency of a bargining deadlock
submitted to arbitration or conciliation.
Held: NO. The law is clear on the matter. The DEADLOCK BAR
RULE simply provides that a petition for certification election can
only be entertained IF THERE IS NO PENDING BARGAINING
DEADLOCK
SUBMITTED
TO
CONCILIATION
OR
ARBITRATION OR HAD BECOME THE SUBJECT OF A VALID
NOTICE OR STRIKE OR LOCKOUT. The principal purpose is to
ensure stability in the relationship of workers and management. The
law demands that the petition for certification election should fail in
the presence of a then pending bargaining deadlock.
Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees v
Laguesma, 267 SCRA 503
In January 1993, Union 1 was the certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of Capitol Medical
Center (CMC). CMC questioned the validity of Union 1s
certification through a series of petitions and a number of judicial
and administrative proceedings. This had the effect of delaying the
commencement of negotiations for a CBA. Due to the continued
refusal of CMC to negotiate, Union 1 filed a notice of strike and
subsequently staged a strike. Meanwhile, in March 1994, Union 2
filed a petition for certification election, claiming that Union 1 has
not commenced the negotiations for a CBA and 1 year has already
elapsed since the last certification election.
Held: Even if one year has already elapsed since the time of
declaration of a final certification result, no certification election
may be had where the delay in forging a CBA could not be attributed
to the fault of the union which won the earlier certification election.
The SC held that a situation where a CBA could not be concluded
due to the failure of one party to willingly perform its duty to bargain
collectively is similar in nature to a bargaining deadlock for which
no certification election could be held.
NACUSIP-TUCP vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 205 SCRA 478
The controversy boils down to the sole issue of whether or not a
petition for certification election may be filed after the 60-day
freedom period.
Held: The clear mandate of the rules state that the petition for
certification election filed by the petitioner NACUSIP-TUCP should
be dismissed outright, having been filed outside the 60-day freedom
period or a period of more than one (1 ) year after the CBA expired.
ALU v Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178
The employer, upon the representation of Union 1 that it is the
exclusive bargaining agent, entered into negotiations with the said
union. Six days before a CBA was to be signed by Union 1 and the
employer, Union 2 staged a strike. The strike was staged after Union
2 failed to convince the employer to recognize it as the real exclusive
bargaining agent. Union 2 then filed a petition for certification
election. Union 1 opposed on the ground that there is an existing
CBA, hence the contract bar rule applies.
Held: Contract bar rule does not apply for the following reasons:
1. In the case at bar, the court found that the ratification of the CBA
was irregular for 2 reasons: (1) the failure to post the same in at
least 2 conspicuous places, and (2) the lack of any showing that
it was actually ratified by a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit. For the contract based rule to apply, the CBA
must not only be registered but also validly ratified.
2. The prompt recognition by the employer of Union 1s standing
as the exclusive bargaining agent was misplaced and the failure
101
103
in 1997. It was only in 1997 that that mode was introduced. Whats
the basic problem with that? Its very transparent insofar as the
decision of the employees are concerned. It is not done by secret
ballot. It is done by signature campaign, by openly asking employees
to sign the document of voluntary recognition which is initiated by
the union and the employer. So it is totally different from the
certification election provided in the law and rules. As far as Im
concerned, I will challenge the validity of that mode of selecting the
bargaining agent. But as far as the RULES are concerned, we have
two modes of selecting the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative.
Certification Election
1.
104
Who is an intervenor?
ORGANIZED
UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS
105
BU
going through the same vicious cycle over again. That happened in
one case I handled.
2.
106
108
SCENARIO 2:
Union A 5
Union B 0
Union C 34
No Union 41
spoiled 20
SCENARIO 6
No union got majority of the
valid votes cast. No union wins.
SCENARIO 3:
Union A 4
Union B 1
Union C 35
No Union 40
Spoiled 20
A=15
B=15
C=10
No Union=40
SCENARIO 5:
A=20
B=10
C=10
No Union=40
Spoiled=0
109
110
Art. 262.
Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. The
voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks. (As added by RA 6715)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
111
112
Nature
Time
consumed
Professional
standing
Capacity
to
pay
Fees provided for in
of
in
of
the
case;
hearing
the
case;
the
voluntary
arbitrator;
of
the
parties;
and
the Revised Rules of Court.
113
Section 1. Creation of labor-management and other councils. The Department shall promote the formation of labor-management
councils in organized and unorganized establishments to enable the
workers to participate in policy and decision-making processes in the
establishment, insofar as said processes will directly affect their
rights, benefits and welfare, except those which are covered by
collective bargaining agreements or are traditional areas of
bargaining.
The Department shall promote other labor-management cooperation
schemes and, upon its own initiative or upon the request of both
parties, may assist in the formulation and development of programs
and projects on productivity, occupational safety and health,
improvement of quality of work life, product quality improvement, and
other similar scheme.
In line with the foregoing, the Department shall render, among
others, the following services:
(a) Conduct awareness campaigns;
(b) Assist the parties in setting up labor-management structures,
functions and procedures;
(c) Provide process facilitators upon request of the parties; and
(d) Monitor the activities of labor-management structures as may be
necessary and conduct studies on best practices aimed at promoting
harmonious labor-management relations.
Section 2. Selection of representatives. - In organized
establishments, the workers' representatives to the council shall be
nominated by the exclusive bargaining representative. In
establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists, the
workers representative shall be elected directly by the employees at
large.
CASES
Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz, 45 SCRA 577
The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract
constitute the law between the parties. Those who are entitled to its
benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event that an obligation
therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right to
go to court for redress.
It is a well-settled doctrine that the benefits of a collective
bargaining agreement extend to the laborers and employees in the
collective bargaining unit, including those who do not belong to the
chosen collective bargaining labor organization. Any other view
would be a discrimination on which the law frowns. If the benefits
of a collective bargaining agreement would not extend to the nonmembers of a chosen collective bargaining labor union, the highly
salutary purpose and objective of the collective bargaining scheme to
enable labor to secure better terms in employment condition as well
as rates of pay would be frustrated insofar as non-members are
concerned, deprived as they are of participation in whatever
advantages could thereby be gained. The labor union that gets the
majority vote as the exclusive bargaining representative does not act
for its members alone. It represents all the employees in such
bargaining unit. It is not to be indulged in any attempt on its part to
disregard the rights of non-members.
Benguet Consolodated v BCI Employees and Workers Union, 23
SCRA 465
Union 1 forged a CBA with the employer with a no-strike, nolockout clause. Subsequently, but during the effectivity of the CBA,
Union 2 was certified as the new bargaining agent. Union 2 filed a
notice of strike and did stage a strike. The employer invokes the nostrike clause in the CBA against Union 2.
Held: The clause does not bind Union 2 on the basis of the
substitutionary doctrine. Although the substitutionary doctrine
provides that the employees cannot revoke a validly executed CBA
by the simple expedient of changing their bargaining agent, this is
subject to certain exceptions, to wit:
1. To negotiate with management for the shortening of the
CBA
2. Personal undertakings
114
115
bar, the union does not come into the picture, not having objected or
voiced any dissent to the dismissal of the herein petitioner.
Sime Darby Pilipinas vs. Magsalin, 180 SCRA 177
The award of a Voluntary Arbitrator is final and executory after ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the award by the parties and the
decision can only be challenge based on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion only.
Imperial Textile Mills vs. Sampang, 219 SCRA 651
When the parties submitted their grievance to arbitration, they
expressly agreed that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator would
be final, executory and unappealable. In fact, even without this
stipulation, the first decision had already become so by virtue of
Article 263 of the Labor Code making voluntary arbitration awards
or decisions final and executory. The Voluntary Arbitrator lost
jurisdiction over the case submitted to him the moment he rendered
his decision. Therefore, he could no longer entertain a motion for
reconsideration of the decision for its reversal or modification.
It is true that the present rule makes the voluntary arbitration
award final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt of the
copy of the award or decision by the parties. Presumably, the
decision may still be reconsidered by the Voluntary Arbitrator on the
basis of a motion for reconsideration duly filed during that period.
Such a provision, being procedural, may be applied retroactively to
pending actions as we have held in a number of cases. However, it
cannot be applied to a case in which the decision had become final
before the new provision took effect, as in the case at bar. R.A. 6715,
which introduced amended Article 262-A of the Labor Code, became
effective on March 21, 1989. The first decision of the Voluntary
Arbitrator was rendered on July 12, 1988, when the law in force was
Article 263 of the Labor Code, which provided that: Voluntary
arbitration awards or decisions shall be final, unappealable, and
executory.
Continental Marble Corporation vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 151
116
Section 1. Creation of labor-management and other councils. The Department shall promote the formation of labor-management
councils in organized and unorganized establishments to enable the
workers to participate in policy and decision-making processes in the
establishment, insofar as said processes will directly affect their
rights, benefits and welfare, except those which are covered by
collective bargaining agreements or are traditional areas of
bargaining.
The Department shall promote other labor-management cooperation
schemes and, upon its own initiative or upon the request of both
parties, may assist in the formulation and development of programs
and projects on productivity, occupational safety and health,
improvement of quality of work life, product quality improvement, and
other similar scheme.
In line with the foregoing, the Department shall render, among
others, the following services:
(a) Conduct awareness campaigns;
(b) Assist the parties in setting up labor-management structures,
functions and procedures;
(c) Provide process facilitators upon request of the parties; and
Art. 277
(h) In establishments where no legitimate labor
organization exists, labor-management committees may be
formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the
purpose of promoting industrial peace. The Department of
Labor and Employment shall endeavor to enlighten and
educate the workers and employers on their rights and
responsibilities through labor education with emphasis on
the policy thrusts of this Code.
117
118