Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000
THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARBITER CEERINA !. DIOSANA
AND MARCELO G. SANTOS, respondents.
PARDO, J."
The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari

to annul the follo!in" orders of the

National #abor Relations Co$$ission %hereinafter referred to as &N#RC&' for havin"
been issued !ithout or !ith e(cess )urisdiction and !ith "rave abuse of discretion*
+
%' Order of May 31, 1993.
,
Reversin" and settin" aside its earlier resolution
of -u"ust +., //+.
0
The 1uestioned order declared that the N#RC, not the
Philippine Overseas 2$plo3$ent -d$inistration %hereinafter referred to as
&PO2-&', had )urisdiction over private respondent4s co$plaint5
%+' Decision of December 15, 1994.
6
Directin" petitioners to )ointl3 and
severall3 pa3 private respondent t!elve thousand and si( hundred dollars
%7S8 +,9::.::' representin" salaries for the une(pired portion of his
contract5 three thousand si( hundred dollars %7S8,,9::.::' as e(tra four
$onths salar3 for the t!o %+' 3ear period of his contract, three thousand si(
hundred dollars %7S8,,9::.::' as &0th $onth pa3& or a total of nineteen
thousand and ei"ht hundred dollars %7S8/,.::.::' or its peso e1uivalent and
attorne34s fees a$ountin" to ten percent %:;' of the total a!ard5 and
%,' Order of March 30, 1995.
9
Den3in" the $otion for reconsideration of the
petitioners.
In <a3, /.., private respondent <arcelo Santos %hereinafter referred to as &Santos&'
!as an overseas !or=er e$plo3ed as a printer at the <a>oon Printin" Press, Sultanate
of O$an. Subse1uentl3, in ?une /.., he !as directl3 hired b3 the Palace @otel,
Aei)in", People4s Republic of China and later ter$inated due to retrench$ent.
Petitioners are the <anila @otel Corporation %hereinafter referred to as &<@C&' and the
<anila @otel International Co$pan3, #i$ited %hereinafter referred to as &<@IC#&'.
Bhen the case !as filed in //:, <@C !as still a "overn$entCo!ned and controlled
corporation dul3 or"ani>ed and e(istin" under the la!s of the Philippines.
<@IC# is a corporation dul3 or"ani>ed and e(istin" under the la!s of @on"
Don".
E
<@C is an &incorporator& of <@IC#, o!nin" 6:; of its capital stoc=.
.
A3 virtue of a &$ana"e$ent a"ree$ent&
/
!ith the Palace @otel %Ban" Fu Co$pan3
#i$ited', <@IC#
:
trained the personnel and staff of the Palace @otel at Aei)in", China.
No! the facts.
Durin" his e$plo3$ent !ith the <a>oon Printin" Press in the Sultanate of O$an,
respondent Santos received a letter dated <a3 +, /.. fro$ <r. Ferhard R. Sh$idt,
Feneral <ana"er, Palace @otel, Aei)in", China. <r. Sch$idt infor$ed respondent
Santos that he !as reco$$ended b3 one Nestor Auenio, a friend of his.
<r. Sh$idt offered respondent Santos the sa$e position as printer, but !ith a hi"her
$onthl3 salar3 and increased benefits. The position !as slated to open on October ,
/...

On <a3 ., /.., respondent Santos !rote to <r. Sh$idt and si"nified his acceptance
of the offer.
On <a3 /, /.., the Palace @otel <ana"er, <r. @ans ?. @en= $ailed a read3 to si"n
e$plo3$ent contract to respondent Santos. <r. @en= advised respondent Santos that
if the contract !as acceptable, to return the sa$e to <r. @en= in <anila, to"ether !ith
his passport and t!o additional pictures for his visa to China.
On <a3 ,:, /.., respondent Santos resi"ned fro$ the <a>oon Printin" Press,
effective ?une ,:, /.., under the prete(t that he !as needed at ho$e to help !ith the
fa$il34s pi""er3 and poultr3 business.
On ?une 0, /.., respondent Santos !rote the Palace @otel and ac=no!led"ed <r.
@en=4s letter. Respondent Santos enclosed four %0' si"ned copies of the e$plo3$ent
contract %dated ?une 0, /..' and notified the$ that he !as "oin" to arrive in <anila
durin" the first !ee= of ?ul3 /...
1
The e$plo3$ent contract of ?une 0, /.. stated that his e$plo3$ent !ould
co$$ence Septe$ber , /.. for a period of t!o 3ears.
+
It provided for a $onthl3
salar3 of nine hundred dollars %7S8/::.::' net of ta(es, pa3able fourteen %0' ti$es a
3ear.
,
On ?une ,:, /.., respondent Santos !as dee$ed resi"ned fro$ the <a>oon Printin"
Press.
On ?ul3 , /.., respondent Santos arrived in <anila.
On Nove$ber 6, /.., respondent Santos left for Aei)in", China. @e started to !or= at
the Palace @otel.
0
Subse1uentl3, respondent Santos si"ned an a$ended &e$plo3$ent a"ree$ent& !ith
the Palace @otel, effective Nove$ber 6, /... In the contract, <r. Sh$idt represented
the Palace @otel. The Vice President %Operations and Develop$ent' of petitioner
<@IC# <i"uel D. Cer"ueda si"ned the e$plo3$ent a"ree$ent under the !ord &noted&.
Fro$ ?une . to +/, /./, respondent Santos !as in the Philippines on vacation leave.
@e returned to China and reassu$ed his post on ?ul3 E, /./.
On ?ul3 ++, /./, <r. Sh$idt4s 2(ecutive Secretar3, a certain ?oanna su""ested in a
hand!ritten note that respondent Santos be "iven one %' $onth notice of his release
fro$ e$plo3$ent.
On -u"ust :, /./, the Palace @otel infor$ed respondent Santos b3 letter si"ned b3
<r. Sh$idt that his e$plo3$ent at the Palace @otel print shop !ould be ter$inated due
to business reverses brou"ht about b3 the political upheaval in China.
6
Be 1uote the
letter*
9
&-fter the unfortunate happenin"s in China and especiall3 Aei)in" %referrin" to
Tianna$en S1uare incidents', our business has been severel3 affected. To
reduce e(penses, !e !ill not openGoperate printshop for the ti$e bein".
&Be sincerel3 re"ret that a decision li=e this has to be $ade, but rest assured
this does in no !a3 reflect 3our past perfor$ance !hich !e found up to our
e(pectations.&
&Should a turnaround in the business happen, !e !ill contact 3ou directl3 and
"ive 3ou priorit3 on future assi"n$ent.&
On Septe$ber 6, /./, the Palace @otel ter$inated the e$plo3$ent of respondent
Santos and paid all benefits due hi$, includin" his plane fare bac= to the Philippines.
On October ,, /./, respondent Santos !as repatriated to the Philippines.
On October +0, /./, respondent Santos, throu"h his la!3er, -tt3. 2dnave !rote <r.
Sh$idt, de$andin" full co$pensation pursuant to the e$plo3$ent a"ree$ent.
On Nove$ber , /./, <r. Sh$idt replied, to !it*
E
@is service !ith the Palace @otel, Aei)in" !as not abruptl3 ter$inated but !e
follo!ed the oneC$onth notice clause and <r. Santos received all benefits due
hi$.
&For 3our infor$ation the Print Shop at the Palace @otel is still not operational
and !ith a lo! business outloo=, retrench$ent in various depart$ents of the
hotel is "oin" on !hich is a nor$al $ana"e$ent practice to control costs.
&Bhen "oin" throu"h the latest perfor$ance ratin"s, please also be advised
that his perfor$ance !as belo! avera"e and a Chinese National !ho is doin"
his )ob no! sho!s a better approach.
&In closin", !hen <r. Santos received the letter of notice, he hardl3 sho!ed up
for !or= but still en)o3ed free acco$$odationGlaundr3G$eals up to the da3 of
his departure.&
On Februar3 +:, //:, respondent Santos filed a co$plaint for ille"al dis$issal !ith the
-rbitration Aranch, National Capital Re"ion, National #abor Relations Co$$ission
%N#RC'. @e pra3ed for an a!ard of nineteen thousand nine hundred and t!ent3 three
dollars %7S8/,/+,.::' as actual da$a"es, fort3 thousand pesos %P0:,:::.::' as
e(e$plar3 da$a"es and attorne34s fees e1uivalent to +:; of the da$a"es pra3ed for.
The co$plaint na$ed <@C, <@IC#, the Palace @otel and <r. Sh$idt as respondents.
The Palace @otel and <r. Sh$idt !ere not served !ith su$$ons and neither
participated in the proceedin"s before the #abor -rbiter.
.
On ?une +E, //, #abor -rbiter Ceferina ?. Diosana, decided the case a"ainst
petitioners, thus*
/
&B@2R2FOR2, )ud"$ent is hereb3 rendered*
2
&. directin" all the respondents to pa3 co$plainant )ointl3 and severall35
&a' 8+:,.+: 7S dollars or its e1uivalent in Philippine currenc3 as
unearned salaries5
&b' P6:,:::.:: as $oral da$a"es5
&c' P0:,:::.:: as e(e$plar3 da$a"es5 and
&d' Ten %:' percent of the total a!ard as attorne34s fees.
&SO ORD2R2D.&
On ?ul3 +,, //, petitioners appealed to the N#RC, ar"uin" that the PO2-, not the
N#RC had )urisdiction over the case.
On -u"ust +., //+, the N#RC pro$ul"ated a resolution, statin"*
+:
&B@2R2FOR2, let the appealed Decision be, as it is hereb3, declared null
and void for !ant of )urisdiction. Co$plainant is hereb3 en)oined to file his
co$plaint !ith the PO2-.
&SO ORD2R2D.&
On Septe$ber ., //+, respondent Santos $oved for reconsideration of the aforeC
1uoted resolution. @e ar"ued that the case !as not co"ni>able b3 the PO2- as he !as
not an &overseas contract !or=er.&
+
On <a3 ,, //,, the N#RC "ranted the $otion and reversed itself. The N#RC
directed #abor -rbiter 2$erson Tu$anon to hear the case on the 1uestion of !hether
private respondent !as retrenched or dis$issed.
++
On ?anuar3 ,, //0, #abor -rbiter Tu$anon co$pleted the proceedin"s based on the
testi$onial and docu$entar3 evidence presented to and heard b3 hi$.
+,
Subse1uentl3, #abor -rbiter Tu$anon !as reCassi"ned as trial -rbiter of the National
Capital Re"ion, -rbitration Aranch, and the case !as transferred to #abor -rbiter ?ose
F. de Vera.
+0
On Nove$ber +6, //0, #abor -rbiter de Vera sub$itted his report.
+6
@e found that
respondent Santos !as ille"all3 dis$issed fro$ e$plo3$ent and reco$$ended that he
be paid actual da$a"es e1uivalent to his salaries for the une(pired portion of his
contract.
+9
On Dece$ber 6, //0, the N#RC ruled in favor of private respondent, to !it*
+E
&B@2R2FOR2, findin" that the report and reco$$endations of -rbiter de
Vera are supported b3 substantial evidence, )ud"$ent is hereb3 rendered,
directin" the respondents to )ointl3 and severall3 pa3 co$plainant the
follo!in" co$puted contractual benefits* %' 7S8+,9::.:: as salaries for the
une(pired portion of the parties4 contract5 %+' 7S8,,9::.:: as e(tra four %0'
$onths salar3 for the t!o %+' 3ears period %sic' of the parties4 contract5 %,'
7S8,,9::.:: as &0th $onth pa3& for the aforesaid t!o %+' 3ears contract
stipulated b3 the parties or a total of 7S8/,.::.:: or its peso e1uivalent, plus
%0' attorne34s fees of :; of co$plainant4s total a!ard.
&SO ORD2R2D.&
On Februar3 +, //6, petitioners filed a $otion for reconsideration ar"uin" that #abor
-rbiter de Vera4s reco$$endation had no basis in la! and in fact.
+.
On <arch ,:, //6, the N#RC denied the $otion for reconsideration.
+/
@ence, this petition.
,:
On October /, //6, petitioners filed !ith this Court an ur"ent $otion for the issuance
of a te$porar3 restrainin" order andGor !rit of preli$inar3 in)unction and a $otion for
the annul$ent of the entr3 of )ud"$ent of the N#RC dated ?ul3 ,, //6.
,
On Nove$ber +:, //6, the Court denied petitioner4s ur"ent $otion. The Court
re1uired respondents to file their respective co$$ents, !ithout "ivin" due course to the
petition.
,+
On <arch ., //9, the Solicitor Feneral filed a $anifestation statin" that after "oin"
over the petition and its anne(es, the3 can not defend and sustain the position ta=en b3
the N#RC in its assailed decision and orders. The Solicitor Feneral pra3ed that he be
e(cused fro$ filin" a co$$ent on behalf of the N#RC
,,
On -pril ,:,//9, private respondent Santos filed his co$$ent.
,0
3
On ?une +9, //9, the Court "ranted the $anifestation of the Solicitor Feneral and
re1uired the N#RC to file its o!n co$$ent to the petition.
,6
On ?anuar3 E, //E, the N#RC filed its co$$ent.
The petition is $eritorious.
I. Forum Non-on!eniens
The N#RC !as a seriousl3 inconvenient foru$.
Be note that the $ain aspects of the case transpired in t!o forei"n )urisdictions and the
case involves purel3 forei"n ele$ents. The onl3 lin= that the Philippines has !ith the
case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citi>en. The Palace @otel and <@IC# are
forei"n corporations. Not all cases involvin" our citi>ens can be tried here.
"he em#$oymen% con%rac%. H Respondent Santos !as hired directl3 b3 the Palace
@otel, a forei"n e$plo3er, throu"h correspondence sent to the Sultanate of O$an,
!here respondent Santos !as then e$plo3ed. @e !as hired !ithout the intervention of
the PO2- or an3 authori>ed recruit$ent a"enc3 of the "overn$ent.
,9
7nder the rule of forum non con!eniens, a Philippine court or a"enc3 $a3 assu$e
)urisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so #ro!ided* %' that the Philippine court is
one to !hich the parties $a3 convenientl3 resort to5 %+' that the Philippine court is in a
position to $a=e an intelli"ent decision as to the la! and the facts5 and %,' that the
Philippine court has or is li=el3 to have po!er to enforce its decision.
,E
The conditions
are unavailin" in the case at bar.
No% on!enien%. H Be fail to see ho! the N#RC is a convenient foru$ "iven that all
the incidents of the case H fro$ the ti$e of recruit$ent, to e$plo3$ent to dis$issal
occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is co$pounded b3 the fact that the
proper defendants, the Palace @otel and <@IC# are not nationals of the Philippines.
Neither .are the3 &doin" business in the Philippines.& #i=e!ise, the $ain !itnesses, <r.
Sh$idt and <r. @en= are nonCresidents of the Philippines.
No #o&er %o de%ermine a##$icab$e $a&. H Neither can an intelli"ent decision be $ade
as to the la! "overnin" the e$plo3$ent contract as such !as perfected in forei"n soil.
This calls to fore the application of the principle of le( loci contractus %the la! of the
place !here the contract !as $ade'.
,.
The e$plo3$ent contract !as not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos
si"nified his acceptance b3 !ritin" a letter !hile he !as in the Republic of O$an. This
letter !as sent to the Palace @otel in the People4s Republic of China.
No #o&er %o de%ermine %he fac%s. H Neither can the N#RC deter$ine the facts
surroundin" the alle"ed ille"al dis$issal as all acts co$plained of too= place in Aei)in",
People4s Republic of China. The N#RC !as not in a position to deter$ine !hether the
Tianna$en S1uare incident trul3 adversel3 affected operations of the Palace @otel as
to )ustif3 respondent Santos4 retrench$ent.
'rinci#$e of effec%i!eness, no #o&er %o e(ecu%e decision. H 2ven assu$in" that a
proper decision could be reached b3 the N#RC, such !ould not have an3 bindin" effect
a"ainst the e$plo3er, the Palace @otel. The Palace @otel is a corporation incorporated
under the la!s of China and !as not even served !ith su$$ons. ?urisdiction over its
person !as not ac1uired.
This is not to sa3 that Philippine courts and a"encies have no po!er to solve
controversies involvin" forei"n e$plo3ers. Neither are !e sa3in" that !e do not have
po!er over an e$plo3$ent contract e(ecuted in a forei"n countr3. If )an%os &ere an
*o!erseas con%rac% &or+er*, a 'hi$i##ine forum, s#ecifica$$y %he 'O,-, no% %he N./,
&ou$d #ro%ec% him.
,/
@e is not an &overseas contract !or=er& a fact !hich he ad$its
!ith conviction.
0:
2ven assu$in" that the N#RC !as the proper foru$, even on the $erits, the N#RC4s
decision cannot be sustained.
II. M0 No% .iab$e
2ven if !e assu$e t!o thin"s* %' that the N#RC had )urisdiction over the case, and %+'
that <@IC# !as liable for Santos4 retrench$ent, still <@C, as a separate and distinct
)uridical entit3 cannot be held liable.
True, <@C is an incorporator of <@IC# and o!ns fift3 percent %6:;' of its capital stoc=.
@o!ever, this is not enou"h to pierce the veil of corporate fiction bet!een <@IC# and
<@C.
Piercin" the veil of corporate entit3 is an e1uitable re$ed3. It is resorted to !hen the
corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, )ustif3 !ron", protect fraud or
defend a cri$e. 0 It is done onl3 !hen a corporation is a $ere alter e"o or business
conduit of a person or another corporation.
4
In "raders /oya$ 1an+ !. our% of -##ea$s,
0+
!e held that &the $ere o!nership b3 a
sin"le stoc=holder or b3 another corporation of all or nearl3 all of the capital stoc= of a
corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disre"ardin" the fiction of separate
corporate personalities.&
The tests in deter$inin" !hether the corporate veil $a3 be pierced are* Firs%, the
defendant $ust have control or co$plete do$ination of the other corporation4s
finances, polic3 and business practices !ith re"ard to the transaction attac=ed. There
$ust be proof that the other corporation had no separate $ind, !ill or e(istence !ith
respect the act co$plained of. )econd, control $ust be used b3 the defendant to
co$$it fraud or !ron". "hird, the aforesaid control or breach of dut3 $ust be the
pro(i$ate cause of the in)ur3 or loss co$plained of. The absence of an3 of the
ele$ents prevents the piercin" of the corporate veil.
0,
It is basic that a corporation has a personalit3 separate and distinct fro$ those
co$posin" it as !ell as fro$ that of an3 other le"al entit3 to !hich it $a3 be
related.
00
Clear and convincin" evidence is needed to pierce the veil of corporate
fiction.
06
In this case, !e find no evidence to sho! that <@IC# and <@C are one and
the sa$e entit3.
III. M0I. no% .iab$e
Respondent Santos predicates <@IC#4s liabilit3 on the fact that <@IC# &si"ned& his
e$plo3$ent contract !ith the Palace @otel. This fact fails to persuade us.
Firs%, !e note that the Vice President %Operations and Develop$ent' of <@IC#, <i"uel
D. Cer"ueda si"ned the e$plo3$ent contract as a $ere !itness. @e $erel3 si"ned
under the !ord &noted&.
Bhen one &notes& a contract, one is not e(pressin" his a"ree$ent or approval, as a
part3 !ould.
09
In )ichan2co !. 1oard of ommissioners of Immi2ra%ion,
0E
the Court
reco"ni>ed that the ter$ &noted& $eans that the person so notin" has $erel3 ta=en
co"ni>ance of the e(istence of an act or declaration, !ithout e(ercisin" a )udicious
deliberation or renderin" a decision on the $atter.
<r. Cer"ueda $erel3 si"ned the &!itnessin" part& of the docu$ent. The &!itnessin"
part& of the docu$ent is that !hich, &in a deed or other for$al instru$ent is that
part &hich comes af%er %he reci%a$s, or !here there are no recitals, af%er %he
#ar%ies %em#hasis ours'.&
0.
-s opposed to a part3 to a contract, a !itness is si$pl3 one
!ho, &bein" present, personall3 sees or perceives a thin"5 a beholder, a spectator, or
e3e!itness.&
0/
One !ho &notes& so$ethin" )ust $a=es a &brief !ritten state$ent&
6:
a
$e$orandu$ or observation.
)econd, and $ore i$portantl3, there !as no e(istin" e$plo3erCe$plo3ee relationship
bet!een Santos and <@IC#. In deter$inin" the e(istence of an e$plo3erCe$plo3ee
relationship, the follo!in" ele$ents are considered*
6
&%' the selection and en"a"e$ent of the e$plo3ee5
&%+' the pa3$ent of !a"es5
&%,' the po!er to dis$iss5 and
&%0' the po!er to control e$plo3ee4s conduct.&
<@IC# did not have and did not e(ercise an3 of the afore$entioned po!ers. It
did no% select respondent Santos as an e$plo3ee for the Palace @otel. @e !as referred
to the Palace @otel b3 his friend, Nestor Auenio. <@IC# did not en"a"e respondent
Santos to !or=. The ter$s of e$plo3$ent !ere ne"otiated and finali>ed throu"h
correspondence bet!een respondent Santos, <r. Sch$idt and <r. @en=, !ho !ere
officers and representatives of the Palace @otel and not <@IC#. Neither did respondent
Santos adduce an3 proof that <@IC# had the po!er to control his conduct. Finall3, it
!as the Palace @otel, throu"h <r. Sch$idt and no% <@IC# that ter$inated respondent
Santos4 services.
Neither is there evidence to su""est that <@IC# !as a &laborConl3 contractor.&
6+
There
is no proof that <@IC# &supplied& respondent Santos or even referred hi$ for
e$plo3$ent to the Palace @otel.
#i=e!ise, there is no evidence to sho! that the Palace @otel and <@IC# are one and
the sa$e entit3. The fact that the Palace @otel is a $e$ber of the &<anila @otel Froup&
is not enou"h to pierce the corporate veil bet!een <@IC# and the Palace @otel.
I3. 4ra!e -buse of Discre%ion
Considerin" that the N#RC !as forum non-con!eniens and considerin" further that no
e$plo3erCe$plo3ee relationship e(isted bet!een <@IC#, <@C and respondent
Santos, #abor -rbiter Ceferina ?. Diosana clearl3 had no )urisdiction over respondent4s
clai$ in N#RC NCR Case No. ::C:+C::6.C/:.
#abor -rbiters have e(clusive and ori"inal )urisdiction onl3 over the follo!in"*
6,
&. 7nfair labor practice cases5
5
&+. Ter$ination disputes5
&,. If acco$panied !ith a clai$ for reinstate$ent, those cases that !or=ers
$a3 file involvin" !a"es, rates of pa3, hours of !or= and other ter$s and
conditions of e$plo3$ent5
&0. Clai$s for actual, $oral, e(e$plar3 and other for$s of da$a"es arisin"
fro$ e$plo3erCe$plo3ee relations5
&6. Cases arisin" fro$ an3 violation of -rticle +90 of this Code, includin"
1uestions involvin" le"alit3 of stri=es and loc=outs5 and
&9. 2(cept clai$s for 2$plo3ees Co$pensation, Social Securit3, <edicare
and $aternit3 benefits, all other clai$s, arisin" fro$ e$plo3erCe$plo3ee
relations, includin" those of persons in do$estic or household service,
involvin" an a$ount e(ceedin" five thousand pesos %P6,:::.::' re"ardless of
!hether acco$panied !ith a clai$ for reinstate$ent.&
In all these cases, an e$plo3erCe$plo3ee relationship is an indispensable )urisdictional
re1uire$ent.
The )urisdiction of labor arbiters and the N#RC under -rticle +E of the #abor Code is
li$ited to disputes arisin" fro$ an e$plo3erCe$plo3ee relationship !hich can be
resolved b3 reference to the #abor Code, or other labor statutes, or their collective
bar"ainin" a"ree$ents.
60
&To deter$ine !hich bod3 has )urisdiction over the present controvers3, !e rel3 on the
sound )udicial principle that )urisdiction over the sub)ect $atter is conferred b3 la! and
is deter$ined b3 the alle"ations of the co$plaint irrespective of !hether the plaintiff is
entitled to all or so$e of the clai$s asserted therein.&
66
The lac= of )urisdiction of the #abor -rbiter !as obvious fro$ the alle"ations of the
co$plaint. @is failure to dis$iss the case a$ounts to "rave abuse of discretion.
69
3. "he Fa$$o
B@2R2FOR2, the Court hereb3 FR-NTS the petition for certiorari and -NN7#S the
orders and resolutions of the National #abor Relations Co$$ission dated <a3 ,,
//,, Dece$ber 6, //0 and <arch ,:, //6 in N#RC NCR C- No. ::+:C/
%N#RC NCR Case No. ::C:+C::6.C/:'.
No costs.
SO ORD2R2D.
6