LABOR LAW 2
INTEGRATION NOTES
BASIC PROPOSITIONS
Constitutional basis
- government employees included
- the Consti is specific: it makes mention of “unions”
- A13 Sec.3 Consti: talks about the Private sector and Labor Relations
rights:
- collective bargaining
- echoes Art. II of Consti
- right to engage in peaceful concerted activities including the right
to strike in accordance with law (purpose and means test)
- preferred: voluntary mode of dispute settlement
- share in the fruits of production
A211 LC Policy declarations
- policy considerations
- note that all provision operate under A211
[a] modes of dispute settlement: collective bargaining and negotiation;
and arbitration
- the intention of the law is to provide for a democratic way of setting
wages and no court can set terms of employment except as otherwise
provided for: *compulsory arbitration under A263(g), minimum wage
fixing, and in cases of wage distortion, unorganized establishment.
[b] unions are valid institutions; policy considerations include: *trade
unionism where unions are instruments for enhancement of
Democracy and promotion Social Justice, and a strong united labor
force, *enlighten worker, *just sharing, and *stable industrial peace
A212 LC re Definitions
- statutory definitions
- A212 is used to determine WON Book 5 of LC applies
- “means” v “includes” – means: definition is complete, dictionary
meaning
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Road map of the law: [a] Consti – states and recognizes the right of
workers to self organization
[b] LC – A243 – All EEs
A244 – Gov’t EEs and GOCC (see EO 180)
A245 – Right of supervisors; right denied to managerial EEs
A269 – with respect to aliens
Jurisprudential Rules:
[1] The right of the worker to self organization is both a constitutionally
and statutorily guaranteed right.
[2] The right to self organization is of paramount value and thus cannot
be denied on nebulous grounds\
[3] Any exception to the rule on self organization must be strictly
construed against the ER and must be liberally construed for the worker
A243 – [a] applies to all EE status, regardless of WON ER is organized
for profit or not.
[b] distinction: Right to SO for purposes of CB, and Right to SO for
purpose of Mutual Aid and Protection
FEU Medical Center case – the amended law no longer limits the
applicability to establishments profit institutions; it also applies to non-
profit institutions.
Kapatiran case and Victoriano Elizalde case – the right to SO is
constitutionally guaranteed. It may run afoul right to religion. When EE
exercises right to SO, it is valid and the courts will not disturb. The
choice to exercise was made by EE, therefore religious tenets canot
prevail.
A245 – Supervisor: acts in the interest of the ER
Limitation in A245: a union must exclusively be a union of supervisors
A supervisor, when he is performing his function: [a] uses independent
judgment, and [b] effectively exercises that right
Jurisprudential rules:
[1] WON an EE is a supervisor is a question of fact
[2] In the exercise of the supervisor of the right, the question is, is it
effective? If power is present but the exercise is not effective, then he’s
NOT a supervisor. (power-present + power effective = supervisor)
[3] It is not the title which ER confers on the worker that makes him a
supervisor, neither is the job description, BUT it is the job that is
actually performed by him.
A269 – re Aliens
2 Rules: [a] alien is a holder of a valid work permit
[b] rule of reciprocity: alien’s country recognizes the same
Security Guards
The prohibition in A245 LC with regard to supervisory EEs does not
include security guards.
Meralco doctrine: EO 111 has eliminated the disqualification of security
guards from forming labor unions. IRR which disqualify security guards
from joining rank and file EEs are null and void for being not germane
to object and purpose of EO 111. SG’s were direct EEs of Meralco.
Workers with NO right to SO:
[a] Managerial EEs (A212.m, A245 and A82)
[b] Confidential EEs by necessary implication
Jurisprudential rules:
[1] Deemed confidential EE IF he *acts in a confidential capacity,
*assists another individual who formulates, determines, effectuates
mgt policies in the field of labor relations, and *has access to
information re labor mgt. relations as *an integral part of his job
(nature of access + nature of info).
[2] If the info relates to non-labor mgt relations, no right to SO.
[c] Cooperatives
Jurisprudential rules:
[1] If individual is both an EE and member of coop, there’s no right to
SO (Rural Bank of Davao case)
[2] If only an EE of coop, then he has right to SO.
* The fact of ownership and not membership in coop is the basis for
prohibition. Fact of active participation in coop is irrelevant.
[d]Non EEs – If union members are not EEs, no right to organize for the
purpose of CB and to be certified as bargaining agent can be recognized.
(Republic Planters Bank v Laguesma)
- When right to SO is infringed, then there’s possibility of ULP
- LA has original exclusive jurisdiction
- Compulsory arbitration but may stipulate voluntary arbitration as
allowed under A217
- There are penal sanctions.
LABOR ORGANIZATION
The law on Labor Organization (LO) is anchored on policy declarations
in A211.
Focus: A234-A re Chartering and Creation of a Local Chapter
A242-A re Reportorial Requirements
A239 – Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration
A211 – Policy intent of the law: LO’s are valid institutions in Phil.
Society designed to promote social justice, a strong and united labor
union, and to enlighten the work force in order to function well
A277 – labor education programs
3 important terms
[1] Legit LO (LLO)– Test: Registration with the DOLE and not SEC
- “includes a local/branch thereof” – not automatically a LLO
A234-A re union’s limited form of legitimacy for purposes of CE, but
must satisfy the requirements.
A242 re rights of LLO; A242-A re reporting requirements
[2] Company Union – defined in A248 (act of company union is an act
of ULP)
- the organization, formation or administration is assisted by ER (this is
ULP)
[3] Workers Association – unlike LO, its purpose is for mutual aid and
protection
Airline Pilots Assoc case – the test of what is LO is its purpose: “in
whole or in part for purposes of CB”. Members of a LO not limited to
EEs of a particular ER
Dunlop case – where union is of both supervisors and rank and file EEs,
then it is not a LO.
Bitonion case – one becomes a member of a LO if intent is coupled with
a positive act. Test: consti and by-laws
A234 and A237
*A234 re Req’ts of registration of LO
- independent union, 20% support requirement
- req’t of submission of book of accounts
- if period of existence is less than 1year, just state so and it will be
sufficient, no need to submit book of accts
*A237 re Req’ts of registration of national federations
- no 20% support requirement, application must instead be
supported by 10 locals
*A235 re action on application: to approve or not
- The right to SO is not infringed on LC req’t of registration
Reasons: [a] right guaranteed by the registration are mere statutory
[b] Protective device argument: protect labor from organizations
which are not really representatives of labor (Progressive
Devt Corp case)
[c] Valid exercise of Police Power (PAFLU v Sec of Labor)
- Registration however is a requirement to avail of right under A242. So
if not registered, it cannot avail of rights under A242, (e.g. KMU is not
registered)
A241, A222 and A113
A241 par. m, n, p are the most difficult part
*distinguish between extraordinary fees in A241 and atty’s fees in A222
A222 speaks of atty’s fees re disputes
A241 speaks of special assessments and extraordinary expenses; this
can be processed thru check off
How to pass:
- a meeting called for that purpose
- required quorum: all members
- records req’ts and attestation clause
2 Rules: [1] No shortcut is allowed by law; there must be total absolute
compliance (ABS-CBN case), [2] Authority must be in writing
“except for mandatory activities” –
Check-off – authority in writing stating the amount, purpose and
beneficiary.
*distinguish: A113 re check-off of union dues, and A241 check-off of
special assessment
Collateral attack is not allowed. Legitimacy must be attacked directly
through a petition for cancellation of registration
Union-Member Relations
UST Faculty Union v Bitonio – union’s consti and by laws (CBL) is the
fundamental law that governs the relationship between and among
members of the union.
Admission
A249.a – “LO shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect
to the acquisition or retention of membership”
A277.c – any EE, WON employed for a definite period, beginning on
his first day of service, shall be considered an EE for purposes of
membership in any labor union.
Discipline – inherent function of union. Basis: survival however,
requisites of due process must always be complied with
Election – ER should give voter’s list if not records of SSS is a valid
alternative
Last par. of A241 – don’t bother because there’s A226: any inter/intra
union is governed by the jurisdiction of BLR and A226
Union Affiliation and Disaffiliation
Right of union to affiliate and disaffiliate
Right of worker to join, not to join and to disaffiliate
--- part of the right to SO
Jurisprudential rules:
[1] Right to affiliate includes the right to disaffiliate, right to join
includes the right not to join
[2] Union has a right to disaffiliate, but it must comply with the [a] composition: all or less than all EEs of a particular ER
procedure to disaffiliate if such procedure is provided and at the same [b] ER equity musrt also be considered (administration of CBA)
time valid. [c] group EEs with a commom interest (with respect to wages, hrs of
[3] An affiliate is not a creation of a national federation. One is work and othr terms and conditions)
independent of the other Reason for the grouping: To best assure workers’ right to CB & SO
[4] Both may enter in a CBA or other contracts, and in case of
disaffiliation the local union will own the contract because nat’l UP v Calleja – there’s no test or guide provided by LC except the word
federation is only an agent. “appropriate.” But since 1956, SC has consistently applied the
commonality or mutuality of interest test.
*Adamson, Atlas and De La Salle cases are no longer applicable: The
amendment of the law provides that both rank and file EEs union and - Freedom to agree between EE and ER to determine ABU. If not, then
supervisors union of the same ER may now affiliate with the same nat’l through BLR and NCMB.
federation
Gen. Rule: Dayotogan and Interphil – Corporate fiction, treated as
Union Security distinct corporations even if there’s common ownership.
A249 – basis Exception: Philippine Scouts Veterans case – If there’s pervasive
Union security provisions are valid commonality, piercing the corporate veil is justified.
Jurisprudence: Union security provisions do not violate the freedom to
associate *A prior agreement on the composition of a bargaining unit is not
a. closed shop binding. Appropriateness of bargaining unit composition may change.
b. union shop
c. maintenance of membership UNION MAJORITY STATUS
- Union of their own choosing – majority of workers in ABU – negotiate
3 basic concepts with ER
a. What is the access to the labor market? - Before a union can negotiate a CBA with ER:
b. What is the condition for continuing employment? [a] union must be legit LO
c. When is employment lost? [b] it must represent majority of EEs in the ABU
[c] there must be ER-EE relationship; absent ER-EE rel, there’s no duty
Rules: to bargain
[1] if there is termination, ER must comply with the procedural die
process. The union’s offer to exempt ER from liability will not lie if ER Mechanism: [A]*Do I want a union? *if Yes, which one?
does not comply with due process [B ] I do not want a union
[2] Union security provisions applicable to present and future EEs, but
not to members of other unions. Rules: (see A246 and A257)
[1] CE is only an inquisitory proceeding, not adversarial
*Note amendments: A234-A, A239, and A242-A [2] There can be no direct certification, because CE is a statutory policy
APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT that cannot be circumvented
A255 and A256 [3] The law is partial to CE because it’s the most democratic and most
Key: definition of Rothenberg, used by Justice Narvasa in UP v Calleja: efficient way of settling majority status
2 ways to determine majority status (prior to voluntary recognition)
- Certification Election (CE)
- Consent election
*Voluntary recognition (VR) came in by IRR
Law Prior to VR
- There was no direct certification. Law is partial to CE
- A256 (organized establishment, A257 (unorganized), A258 (ER
initiated)
Warren case – introduced consent election, but with a limited purpose:
to determine majority status only to administer already existing CBA.
Consent election is bar to CE.
A256 – Structure
[a] There’s existing CBA or no existing CBA but there is a union
recognized.
[b] Petition for CE in relation to A253-A, filed only within freedom
period.
[c] Petition for CE must be accompanied by substantial support.
Jurisprudence: [1] Petition filed within freedom period and not
before or after expiration.
[2] Substantial support rule need not be shown at the time of filing
the petition, but within a reasonable time thereafter before CE
[3] Withdrawal of signatures has no effect, CE continues
A257 – no existing certified bargaining agent
A258 – ER requested to bargain & ER doubts majority status
Q: When is CE automatic?
[a] In A256, it is automatic if it is filed within freedom period and
there’s substantial support
[b] In A257, election is automatic if a union files a petition for CE
Q: When is CE discretionary?
A: CE is discretionary under A256 if even absent substantial support,
CE will achieve the purpose of the law, which is CB
*ER is a total stranger in CE
Colgate-Palmolive case and Samahan ng mga Manggagawa case –
There is no direct certification. Neither can ER voluntarily recognize the
union because in effect it is a direct certification. In Colgate, the act of
the Labor Sec. certifying without conducting CE violated A256. In
Samahan, ER’s voluntarily recognizing the union is invalid because in
effect it’s direct certification.
Law After VR
DOLE implemented VT in IRR but provided safeguards:
a. there’s only 1 union in the establishment
b. the union is a LLO
c. fact of VR is reported to DOLE and advertised
In sum,
- Today Colgate and Samahan cases are still valid
- A256 and A257 are still valid and not deemed repealed by the IRR
- Voluntary Recognition (VR) has not yet been challenged in court
Mechanics of A256:
*There’s a support but only DOLE can question the veracity of such; no
other parties can
*A256 and A257 are union-initiated elections (see A212 on Legit status
of petitioner, and also A234-A)
*A258 is ER initiated
Mecganics of CE:
*CE must be validly held, because if not the question of run-off does not
arise
*Majority of the workers cast their votes
*For a union to win it must garner the majority of the valid votes cast.
Run-off election: Requisites:
- CE was validly conducted
- There were 3 or more choices
- Not one of the choices had majority of the valid votes cast
- The combined votes of all the unions = 50% of votes cast
Votes cast – Important in determining [a] the validity of the run-off
elections, and [b] WON run off elections can be done (last req’t)
*Certificate Election is held on a regular business day. CE is valid even
if there’s strike unless it is so pervasive that a substantial number of
workers weren’t able to vote.
3 bars to CE:
[1] Contract Bar Rule (A232) – CBA valid and contract complete
If contract is incomplete, it can be completed to invoke the contract-bar
rule
[2] 1 yr bar rule – from the time elections results were certified
[3] deadlock bar rule – 2 req’ts: *there was effort to bargain but it failed,
and, *that such deadlock had already been submitted for conciliation
or arbitration
Suspension Rule: refers to prejudicial question
Purpose: to level the playing field in order to prevent undue
advantage
Ground: charge of company domination filed by the union which
filed the case for ULP
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
A250, A251 – designed to implement Consti rights to SO and CB
A252
A251 – authorizes the parties to a voluntary mode, but it must be
expeditious; if but A250 applies
A250 – proposal and counter-proposals must be in writing
- time frames are not mandatory but merely directory; if such
time frames were not complied, it will not amount to ULP
- entry point of NCMB (A233 re privileged communication:
Nissan case – whatever is discussed in a conciliation proceeding
cannot be basis for award and to compel one to testify)
A252 – First part: duty to bargain
Second part: defines what a negotiable issue is
Jurisprudence: Negotiable issues may either be mandatory or permissive
[a] mandatory issue – refusal to negotiate a mandatory issue results in
ULP; if there’s impasses, strike weapon is available
[b] permissive issue – refusal to negotiate a permissive issue does not
result in ULP; strike weapons not available
*“Other terms and conditions” as negotiable issue – the proposal or
counterproposal must have nexus to the nature of work
*The minutes of the negotiation is merely a records and cannot be the
basis of actions. Only the CBA itself can be basis.
*CBA is a contract in personam and not in rem
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
- any act defined by law as ULP (248 and 249)
- designed to redress constitutional and statutory guaranteed rights to
self organization and collective bargaining
Key: A212, A248 and A249
A246 and A247
A248 – interfere, restrain, coerce
A249 – restrain, coerce
An act is ULP
[1] if actor is a labor org, or ER
[2] the act is to interfere, restrain or coerce
[3] the act is directed against the right to self organization or collective
bargaining
*A248 on contracting out: it is ULP if performed by a union member
and has chilling effect
*A247 and 248 re violation of CBA: relate to A260; if it’s not gross and
serious violation of economic provisions, it’s not ULP but remains to be
a grievance
*A248 (a) and 249(a) are bases for the other enumerations of ULP. The
act is ULP only if it falls in A248 and A249,
Test: [a] Was there a reasonable tendency to succeed?
[b] Did anti-union bias contribute to his decision? (mixed-motive test)
*ULP cannot be compromised!
On civil and criminal liability: criminal liability can only be invoked
after civil liability. Jurisdiction is with the LA, however parties can
voluntarily confer jurisdiction on voluntary arbitrators
Preserve management rights of ER so ULP only delves on the manner of
exercise.
STRIKES
Consti basis – “peaceful concerted activities” and “guaranteed in
accordance with law”
Purpose and Means Test
Peaceful – A264 is the measure
In accordance with law – A263
A263 – Allowed strikes: [a] ULP, [b] collective bargaining. All others
are illegal
A264 – Prohibited strikes: [a] inter/intra union disputes, [b] strikes
against industries indispensable to national interest
San Miguel case – A strike includes a “slow down” or a strike in
installments.
Procedure for Strike
- File notice of intent
- Strike vote to make sure there’s no minority strikes
- Reporting (to determine liability)
- Observance of cooling off period
- 7-day ban
- Special procedure: union busting where there’s no observance
of cooling off period and 7-day ban. Note that the 7-day ban is
distinct and separate from the cooling off period
*Compliance of the procedure is mandatory
*Liability is individual
[a] if union officer – “knowingly participates,” or that he authorized or
ratified
[b] if union member – mere participation does not constitute as a ground
for termination (it must be participation + identification)
LABOR INJUNCTION
Focus: A254, A217, A218 and A264
2 rules:
Gen. Rule: Labor injunction is prohibited under certain conditions to
equalize and level the field (A254)
Exception: Labor injunction is allowed under certain conditions
(A217, A218, and A264)
Procedure: A217 and A218
*NLRC has jurisdiction
*What cannot be dispensed with at all times is hearing
*If injunction is wrongly issued, remedies to aggrieved party is
available
Injunction in EO 180 is different from injunction in LC
ARBITRATION
2 kinds: [a] voluntary, [b] compulsory
Voluntary arbitration
It is initiated by agreement of the parties
Jurisdiction by voluntary arbitrator: any and all disputes (A260 and
A217)
Compulsory arbitration
Only labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest
Only labor secretary and President arbitrates
NLRC cannot arbitrate unless there’s conferment
If there’s compulsory arbitration, by operation of law, return to work
order is automatic, and compliance is mandatory, and such obligation
does not amount to involuntary servitude.
READ EO 180