67. G.R. No.

L-35120 January 31, 1984

ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ADAMSON & ADAMSON
SUPERVISORY UNION (FFW), respondents.

Facts:
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) holding that the Adamson and Adamson
Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) can legally represent supervisors of the
petitioner corporation, notwithstanding the affiliation of the rank and file
union of the same company with the same labor federation, the Federation of
Free Workers.
Issues:
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT UNION TO REPRESENT THE
PETITIONER'S SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES NOTWITHATANDING
THE AFFILIATION OF THE SAID UNION WITH THE SAME
NATIONAL FEDERATION... whether or not a supervisor's union may
affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank-and-file employees of
the same employer are also affiliated.
Ruling:
The supervisory employees of an employer cannot join any labor
organization of employees under their supervision but may validly form a
separate organization of their own
The Adamson and Adamson Supervisory Union and the Adamson and
Adamson, Inc., Salesmen Association (FFW), have their own respective
constitutions and by-laws
There could be no employer influence on rank-and-file organizational
activities nor there any rank and file influence on the supervisory functions
of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be proscribed.
 68. G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION LABOR UNION AND THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondents.

Facts:
On November 26, 1992, the Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Labor
Union (TMPCLU) filed a petition for certification election. The Med-
Arbiter, Paterno D. Adap, dismissed respondent union's petition for
certification election for lack of merit.
The Med-Arbiter found that the labor organization's membership was
composed of supervisory and rank-and-file employees in violation... of
Article 245 of the Labor Code,[4] and that at the time of the filing of its
petition, respondent union had not even acquired legal personality yet.[5]
On appeal, the Office of the Secretary of Labor... set aside the Med-Arbiter's
Order of March 3, 1993, and directed the holding of a certification election
among the... regular rank-and-file employees of Toyota Motor Corporation.
Issues:
1. Whether the inclusion of the prohibited mix of rank-and file and
supervisory employees in the roster of members and officers of the
union cannot be cured by a simple inclusion-exclusion proceeding.
2. Whether the respondent union had no legal standing at the time of the
filing of its petition for certification election.
Ruling:
Based on this provision, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file
and supervisory employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any
guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an
organization which carries a mixture of... rank-and-file and supervisory
employees cannot possess any of the rights of a legitimate labor
organization, including the right to file a petition for certification election for
the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes necessary, therefore,
anterior to the granting of... an order allowing a certification election, to
inquire into the composition of any labor organization whenever the status of
the labor organization is challenged on the basis of Article 245 of the Labor
Code.
The use of independent judgment in making the decision to... hire, fire or
transfer in the identification of manpower requirements would be greatly
impaired if the employee's loyalties are torn between the interests of the
union and the interests of management. A supervisory employee occupying a
level five position would therefore find it... difficult to objectively identify
the exact manpower requirements dictated by production demands.
 69. G.R. No. 142000. January 22, 2003
TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB
INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS
EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO, respondent.

FACTS

On October 16, 1997, Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU),

Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local
Chapter No. 776, a legitimate labor organization said to represent majority
of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a petition for certification
election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch No.
IV. On January 28, 1998, DOLE Med-Arbiter Anastacio Bactin ordered the
holding of a certification election. DOLE Resolution of November 12,
19981 setting aside the June 4, 1998 Resolution dismissing the petition for
certification election. MFR denied.

CA denied THIGCI’s Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the DOLE

Resolution dated November 12, 1998. It held that while a petition for
certification election is an exception to the innocent bystander rule, hence,
the employer may pray for the dismissal of such petition on the basis of lack
of mutuality of interests of the members of the union as well as lack of
employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to adduce substantial
evidence to support its allegations.

ISSUE
Whether the withdrawal of some union members from the certification
election will affect the result.

HELD

NO, as for petitioner’ s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition
for certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement and
misrepresentation, the proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a
petition for cancellation of the certificate of registration, and not to intervene
in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged withdrawal of
union members from participating in the certification election, this Court’s
following ruling is instructive:

“T]he best forum for determining whether there were indeed retractions
from some of the laborers is in the certification election itself wherein the
workers can freely express their choice in a secret ballot. Suffice it to say
that the will of the rank-and-file employees should in every possible instance
be determined by secret ballot rather than by administrative or quasi-judicial
inquiry. Such representation and certification election cases are not to be
taken as contentious litigations for suits but as mere investigations of a non-
adversary, fact-finding character as to which of the competing unions
represents the genuine choice of the workers to be their sole and
exclusive collective bargaining representative with their employer.”

70. G.R. No. 160352               July 23, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE), Petitioner, vs. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG.,
PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS: KFWU filed with DOLE Regional Office No. IV, a Petition for
Certification Election to be conducted in the bargaining unit composed of
145 rank-and-file employees of respondent.

Respondent-company filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground

that KFWU did not acquire any legal personality because its membership of
mixed rank-and-file and supervisory employees violated Article 245 of the
Labor Code, and its failure to submit its books of account.

KFWU appealed to the DOLE which granted the appeal; ordered the case be
remanded to the office of origin for the immediate conduct of certification
election xxx CA reversed. MR denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees in a union is a ground for the dismissal of a petition for
certification election.

(2) Whether the legitimacy of a duly registered labor organization can be

collaterally attacked in a petition for a certification election through a motion
to dismiss filed by an employer.

HELD: The petition is imbued with merit.

A labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory
employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose,
be a legitimate labor organization. Not being one, an organization which
carries a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot possess
any of the rights of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file
a petition for certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It
becomes necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a
certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor
organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on
the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code xxxx

Except when it is requested to bargain collectively, an employer is a mere

bystander to any petition for certification election; such proceeding is non-
adversarial and merely investigative, for the purpose thereof is to determine
which organization will represent the employees in their collective
bargaining with the employer.

71. G. R. No. 113907 - February 28, 2000

Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield (MSMG-UWP)
vs. Ramos

FACTS

Petitioner Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield

(MSMG) is a local union. Private respondent M. Greenfield is the employer
of petitioner's members. Members of petitioner conducted a strike, which
was marred by violence. Private respondent attempted to quell the same by
hiring persons for that purpose. Thereafter, petitioners were placed under
preventive suspension; only some of them were eventually allowed to return
to work.

Petitioners thus filed a verified complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the
DOLE, charging private respondent of ULP, in the form of union-busting,
illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, interference in union activities,
discrimination, threats, intimidation, coercion, violence, and oppression.
Private respondent's defense was that the strike was illegal for it was marred
by violence.

ISSUE

Whether the strike should be declared illegal on account of violence

committed during the strike.

HELD

No, where both parties are responsible for the violence committed during the
strike, the strike cannot be declared illegal since the strike cannot be
attributed to the striking employees only. This is an exception to the general
rule that the strike shall be declared illegal where it is marred by violence on
the part of the employees.

In the case at bar, the allegation of violence committed in the course of the
strike, it must be remembered that the Labor Arbiter and the Commission
found that "the parties are agreed that there were violent incidents . . .
resulting to injuries to both sides, the union and management. The evidence
on record show that the violence cannot be attributed to the striking
employees alone for the company itself employed hired men to pacify the
strikers. With violence committed on both sides, the management and the
employees, such violence cannot be a ground for declaring the strike as
illegal.
 72. G.R. No. L-43495-99               January 20, 1990
TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION-CGW et al vs. TROPICAL HUT
FOOD MARKET, INC., et al

FACTS: The rank and file workers of the Tropical Hut Food Market
Incorporated (respondent company) organized a local union called the
Tropical Hut Employees Union (THEU) and immediately sought affiliation
with the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU).  The NATU
accepted the THEU application for affiliation.

Later on, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the incumbent officers of
the local union informing the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating from the
NATU federation. The employees were dismissed because, as respondent
company contended, they violated the union security clause.

ISSUE:  Was the disaffiliation of the local union from the national

federation valid?

HELD:  YES
The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation is well-
settled. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to
serve the interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate
when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of association. The inclusion of the word NATU after
the name of the local union THEU in the registration with the Department of
Labor is merely to stress that the THEU is NATU’s affiliate at the time of
the registration. A local union owes its creation and continued existence to
the will of its members and not to the federation to which it belongs. Further,
there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the act of
disaffiliation violated the union security clause of the CBA and that their
dismissal as a consequence thereof is valid. A perusal of the CBAs shows
that the THEU-NATU, and not the NATU federation, was recognized as the
sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its workers and
employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work and other terms
and conditions of employment. Although NATU was designated as the sole
bargaining agent in the check-off authorization form attached to the CBA,
this simply means it was acting only for and in behalf of its affiliate.
When the THEU disaffiliated from its mother federation, the former
did not lose its legal personality as the bargaining union under the CBA.
Moreover, the union security clause embodied in the agreements cannot be
used to justify the dismissals meted to petitioners since it is not applicable to
the circumstances obtaining in this case. The CBA imposes dismissal only in
case an employee is expelled from the union for joining another federation
or for forming another union or who fails or refuses to maintain membership
therein. The case at bar does not involve the withdrawal of merely some
employees from the union but of the whole THEU itself from its federation.
Clearly, since there is no violation of the union security provision in the
CBA, there was no sufficient ground to terminate the employment of
petitioners.
73. G.R. No. 127374 - January 31, 2002
Philippine Skylanders vs NLRC

Facts:
In November 1993 the Philippine Skylanders Employees Association
(PSEA), a local labor union affiliated with the Philippine Association of
Free Labor Unions (PAFLU), won in the certification election conducted
among the rank and file employees of Philippine Skylanders, Inc. (PSI). Its
rival union, Philippine Skylanders Employees Association-WATU (PSEA-
WATU) immediately protested the result of the election before the Secretary
of Labor.Several months later, PSEA sent PAFLU a notice of disaffiliation.

PSEA subsequently affiliated itself with the National Congress of Workers

(NCW), changed its name to Philippine Skylanders Employees Association
– National Congress of Workers (PSEA-NCW), and to maintain continuity
within the organization, allowed the former officers of PSEA-PAFLU to
continue occupying their positions as elected officers in the newly-formed
PSEA-NCW.

On 17 March 1994 PSEA-NCW entered into a collective bargaining

agreement with PSI which was immediately registered with the Department
of Labor and Employment. Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to PSEA’s shift
of allegiance, PAFLU Secretary General Serafin Ayroso wrote Mariles C.
Romulo requesting a copy of PSI’s audited financial statement. On 30 July
1994 PSI through its personnel manager Francisco Dakila denied the request
citing as reason PSEA’s disaffiliation from PAFLU and its subsequent
affiliation with NCW.

Issue: Whether PSEA’s disaffiliation is legitimate.

Held:
SC upheld the right of local unions to separate from their mother federation
on the ground that as separate and voluntary associations, local unions do
not owe their creation and existence to the national federation to which they
are affiliated but, instead, to the will of their members. There is nothing
shown in the records nor is it claimed by PAFLU that the local union was
expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation nor were there any
conditions imposed for a valid breakaway. As such, the pendency of an
election protest involving both the mother federation and the local union did
not constitute a bar to a valid disaffiliation.
It was entirely reasonable then for PSI to enter into a collective bargaining
agreement with PSEA-NCW. As PSEA had validly severed itself from
PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could validly hinder it from
subsequently affiliating with NCW and entering into a collective bargaining
agreement in behalf of its members.

74. G.R. No. 124224. March 17, 2000

NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, CO., INC., Petitioner,
v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MUSIB M. BUAT,
LEON G. GONZAGA, JR., ET AL., NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
LABOR, MARIANO AKILIT and 350 OTHERS, Respondents.

FACTS
The NFL was the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the rank
and file employees of petitioner. NFL started to negotiate for better terms
and conditions of employment; which were met with resistance by Petitioner
Company. The NFL filed a complaint for ULP on the ground of refusal to
bargain collectively. LA issued an order declaring the company guilty of
ULP and ordering the CBA proposalssubmitted by the NFL as the CBA
between parties. Later, 186 of private respondents claiming they were
wrongfully excluded from the benefitsunder the CBA filed a petition for
relief. Petitioner asserts that private respondents are not parties to the
agreement and may not claim benefits thereunder. As for the CBA,
petitioner maintains that the force and effect of the CBA’s terms are limited
to only three years and cannot extend to terms and conditions which ceased
to have force and effect.

ISSUES
1. Whether the terms of an existing CBA as to its economic provisions can
be extended beyond the period stipulated therein, even beyond the three
year period prescribed by law, in the absence of a new agreement.
2. Whether the rank and file employees hired after the term of the CBA,
considering their subsequent membership in the bargaining unit, are parties
to the agreement and may claim benefits thereunder.

HELD
1. Yes. It is clear from Art. 253 that until a new CBA has been executed by
and between the parties; they are duly bound to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the
existingagreement. In the case at bar, no new agreement was entered
between the parties pending appeal of the decision in the NLRC.
Consequently, the employees from to the year 1985 (after expiration of the
CBA) onwards would be deprived of a substantial amount of monetary
benefits if the terms and conditions of the CBA were not to remain in force
and effect which runs counter to the intent of the Labor Cod to curb labor
unrest and promote industrial peace.

2. Yes. When a CBA is entered into by the union representing the employees
and the employer, even the non-union members are entitled tothe benefits of
the contract. A laborer can claim benefits from a CBA entered into the
company and the union of which he is a member at the time of the
conclusion of the agreement even after he has resigned from said union.
Therefore, the benefits under the CBA should be extended to those who only
became such after it expired; to exclude them would constitute undue
discrimination.

75. A.C. No. 4763 - March 20, 2003

DR. GIL Y. GAMILLA vs ATTY. EDUARDO J. MARIO JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union
officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with themanagement of UST
for the provision of economic benefits amounting toP35 Milllion. The 1986
collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 butefforts to forge a new one
unfortunately failed. In 1989, the faculty membersof UST went on strike and as
a counter-measure UST terminated theemployment of 16 officers and directors of
the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino, Jr.The Sec of Labor
prescribed the retroactivity of the collectivebargaining agreement to 1988 when
the 1986 collective bargainingagreement expired. In the same year, the
administration of UST and theUST Faculty Union also entered into a
compromise agreement for thepayment to settle backwages.The important fact
in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president,negotiated with UST as union
attorney, even though he was an interestedparty since he was one of the
officers who were dismissed (conflict of interests)

ISSUE: Whether Marino should be reprimanded?

HELD: YES

1. Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when henegotiated for
the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president,
union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed employees
seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained the attys fees
of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances
justifying such clain to the members of the UST Faculty Union.

2. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seekingcompensation from the

UST for their illegal dismissal, Atty. Marino was involved in obvious
conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and
president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. The test
of conflict of interest among lawyers is―whether the acceptance of a new relation
will prevent an atty from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance thereof. In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of
interests for an atty to put himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or
worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client.

3. Atty Marino. Both as lawyer and president of the union was dutybound to protect
and advance the interest of the union members and the bargaining unit above his
own. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest complicated
the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise
agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him at the expense of the
other faculty members. He also ought to have disclosed his interest.
76.  G.R. No. 85333 February 26, 1990
CARMELITO L. PALACOL, ET AL., petitioners, vs.PURA FERRER-
CALLEJA, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, MANILA CCBPI
SALES FORCE UNION, and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILIPPINES),
INC., respondents.

FACTS
On October 12, 1987, the respondent Manila CCBPI Sales Force Union
(hereinafter referred to as the Union), as the collective bargaining agent of
all regular salesmen, regular helpers, and relief helpers of the Manila Plant
and Metro Manila Sales Office of the respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers
(Philippines), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) concluded a new
collective bargaining agreement with the latter. Among the compensation
benefits granted to the employees was a general salary increase to be given
in lump sum including recomputation of actual commissions earned based
on the new rates of increase.

Subsequently however, one hundred seventy (170) members of the Union

submitted documents to the Company stating that although they have ratified
the new CBA, they are withdrawing or disauthorizing the deduction of any
amount from their CBA lump sum. Later, 185 other union members
submitted similar documents expressing the same intent. These members,
numbering 355 in all (170 + 185), added to the original oppositors of 173,
turned the tide in favor of disauthorization for the special assessment, with a
total of 528 objectors and a remainder of 272 supporters.

ISSUE
Whether or not a special assessment be validly deducted by a labor union
from the lump-sum pay of its members, granted under a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA), notwithstanding a subsequent disauthorization
of the same by a majority of the union members.

HELD
The deduction of the 10% special assessment by the Union was not made in
accordance with the requirements provided by law.

Under Article 241, the Union must submit to the Company a written
resolution of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting
duly called for the purpose. The Union, however, failed to comply with the
requirements of Article 241 of the Labor Code.

It submitted only minutes of the local membership meetings when what is

required is a written resolution adopted at the general meeting. Worse still,
the minutes of three of those local meetings held were recorded by a union
director and not by the union secretary. The minutes submitted to the
Company contained no list of the members present and no record of the
votes cast.
77. G.R. No. 56965. March 7, 1984
PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC BANKING
CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION and JUANITO M.
SAAVEDRA, Respondents.

FACTS
Since January 1979, there had been negotiations between the Pacific
Banking Corporation and the Pacific Banking Corporation Employees
Organization (PABECO) for a CBA for 1979 to 1981. Because of a
deadlock, the Minister of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.
The Deputy Minister rendered a decision directing the parties to execute a
CBA in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in his decision

The union was represented in the negotiations by its president, Paula S.

Paug, allegedly assisted as consultant by Jose P. Umali, Jr., the president of
the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) with which it was formerly
affiliated. Lawyer Juanito M. Saavedra’s earliest recorded participation in
the case was on July 15 and 27, 1979 when he filed a motion for
reconsideration and a supplemental motion. No action was taken on said
motions.

The parties appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. The
CBA negotiations were resumed. The union president took part in the
second phase of the negotiations. Saavedra filed a memorandum. He claimed
he exerted much effort to expedite the decision. The Office of the President
issued a resolution directing the parties to execute a CBA containing the
terms and conditions of employment embodied in the resolution.

The bank assailed in this Court the said resolutions by means of certiorari.
On February 5, 1982, the NUBE and thirteen members of the PABECO
intervened in this case and prayed that the said resolutions be declared void
and that said sum of P345,000 be paid directly to the employees or union
members.

ISSUES
Whether the President had jurisdiction to adjudicate on Saavedra’s
attorney’s fees.

HELD
NO. The Office of the President had no jurisdiction to make an adjudication
on Saavedra’s attorney’s fees. The case was appealed with respect to the
CBA terms and conditions, not with respect to attorney’s fees. Although the
fees were a mere incident, nevertheless, the jurisdiction to fix the same and
to order the payment thereof was outside the pale of Clave’s appellate
jurisdiction. He was right in adopting a hands-off attitude in his first
resolution.

84. [G.R. NO. 146728. February 11, 2004]

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION INDEPENDENT
LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), and RITO MANGUBAT, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC) concluded a CBA with

General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union (union) on April 28,
1989, which included the issue of representation effective for a term of three
years. The CBA was effective for three years retroactive to December 1,
1988. Hence, it would expire on November 30, 1991.

The union filed, on July 2, 1992, a complaint against GMC with the
NLRC, Arbitration Division alleging unfair labor practice on the part of
GMC for: (1) refusal to bargain collectively; (2) interference with the right
to self-organization; and (3) discrimination. The labor arbiter dismissed the
case with the recommendation that a petition for certification election be
held to determine if the union still enjoyed the support of the workers. The
union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside the labor arbiter’s
decision. In its decision, the NLRC pointed out that upon the effectivity of
Rep. Act No. 6715, the duration of a CBA, insofar as the representation
aspect is concerned, is five years which, in the case of GMC-Independent
Labor Union was from December 1, 1988 to November 30, 1993.

ISSUE

Whether GMC is guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the duty to
bargain collectively and/or interfering with the right of its employees to self-
organization

HELD

YES. The law mandates that the representation provision of a CBA should
last for five years. The relation between labor and management should be
undisturbed until the last 60 days of the fifth year. The union’s proposal was
also submitted within the prescribed 3-year period from the date of
effectivity of the CBA, albeit just before the last day of said period. It was
obvious that GMC had no valid reason to refuse to negotiate in good faith
with the union. For refusing to send a counter-proposal to the union and to
bargain anew on the economic terms of the CBA, the company committed
an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code.

GMC also interfered with the employees’ right to self-organization. The CA

found that the letters 13 union members signifying their resignation from the
union clearly indicated that GMC exerted pressure on its employees. The
fact that the resignations of the union members occurred during the
pendency of the case before the labor arbiter shows GMC’s desperate
attempts to cast doubt on the legitimate status of the union.