Facts:

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

Dabuet vs Roche

1. Petitioners were officers of Roche Products Labor Union and with whome the
company had a CBA due for re-negotiation that month, wrote the respondent
company expressing grievances of union and seeking formal conference with
management regarding the previous dismissal of union President and VP.
However, instead of discussing the problems, Mr. Mentha, the companys general
manager allegedly berated the petitioners for writing said letter and call the
person who prepared it Stupid
2. Counsel for labor union filed a case of grave slander against Mr. Mentha
3. Respondent company construed the execution by petitioners of the affidavit as an
act of breach of trust and confidence for which they were suspended.
4. Petitioners filed an opposition thereto and also filed charges of ULP, union
busting harassment against the company.
5. Compulsory labor arbiter found that petitioners dismissal was without
justifiable cause but there was no ULP committed.
6. The office of the president rendered a decision finding the respondents guilty of
ULP.
Issue: WON respondent company committed ULP?
Ruling:
Yes, the letter written by and for the union addressed to management referred to
employee grievances and labor management issues, then seeking a renegotiation of the
CBA, a fact which respondent company does not deny and all the more be a recognition
of such letter as an act for the mutual aid, protection and benefit of the employees
concerened.
Respondent companys act amounted to interference with restraint or coercion of the
petitioners exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection.

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

Samahan ng Manggagawa ng Bandolino vs NLRC

Facts:

1. Petitioners are former employees of private respondent and members of

petitioner union.
2. Petitioners were directed to take a two week leave because of a strike at the
shoemart0 Bandolinos biggest customer.
3. Petitioner Marcial Franco and his wife were called to the personnel managers
office and told that Ligaya Franco has been dismissed. Marcial pleaded not to
terminate his wife but this was rejected allegedly because of his refusal to divulge
the names of the organizers and members of petitioner union. Other petitioners
were likewise informed of their termination
4. Petitioners filed a notice of strike, they staged a picket.
5. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and ULP.
6. The Labor arbiter decided the case in favour of petitioners and found that they
had been illegally dismissed because of union activities and that private
respondent imposed illegal condition of petitioners reinstatement by requiring
them to forego their intended strike, withdraw their petition for CE and instead
recognize existing union.
7. Private respondent appealed to the NLRC, contending that the rotation of
petitioners was not a termination of employment. NLRC revered the labor arbiter
as there was no evidence showing specific instances of coercion or restraint to
justify a finding of ULP.
Ruling: There was evidence to the effect that Marcial Franco had been asked to disclose
the names of the members of the union and that the management had shown interest in
the unionizing activities of petitioner. This evidence remained unchallenged. What is
more, it appears that only alleged members of the petitioner union were put on
rotation. Private respondents bellies their claim that they were not aware of
petitioners organizational and union activities prior to unions registration. An

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

employer may be guilty of ULP in interfering with the right to self-organization even
before the union has been registered.

Gochangco Workers Union vs NLRC

Facts:
1. Petitioner union is the local chapter of CLLC, the majority of the rank and file
employees of respondent firm organized the Gochangco Workers Union and filed
a petition for CE and subsequently a hearing was set on February 27. 1980.
2. CLLC national president wrote the general manager of respondent firm
informing him of the organization of union and requesting for a labor
management conference.
3. Union sent a notice to respondent firm requesting permission for certain member
officers of the union to attend the hearing of the petition for CE. The
management refused to acknowledge receipt such notice.
4. Private respondent preventively suspend the union officers who attended the
hearing on the common ground of abandonment of work and on the same day
all gate passes of suspended employees were confiscated.
5. Petitioner union filed a complaint for constructive lockout and ULP.
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of ULP?
Ruling:
Yes, it is no coincidence that at the time said respondent issued its suspension and
termination orders, the petitioners were in the midst of a certification election
preliminary to a labor management conference. It was within the legal right of

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

petitioners to do so, the exercise of which was their sole prerogative and in which
management may not interfere. It is not only an act of arrogance but a brazen
interference as well with the employees right to self-organization.

Facts:

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

Me-Shurn Corporation vs Me-Shurn Workers Union

1. Regular rank and file employees of Me-Shurn Corp organization Me Shurn

Workers Union. Respondent union had a pending application for registration
with the BLR.
2. Ten days later, petitioner corporation started placing on forced leave all rank and
file employees who were members of the unions bargaining unit.
3. Respondent union filed a petitioner for CE and instead of filing an answer to
such petition, the corporation filed a comment that it will temporarily lay off
employees and cease operations of account of its alleged inability to meet export
quota required by BOI. Respondent union filed a Notice of Strike on the ground
of ULP.
4. Chou Fang Kuen and Rquel Lamayra (Filipino admin manager of the
corporation) imposed a precondition for the resumption of operation and
rehiring of laid off workers allegedly requiring the remaining union officers to
sign an agreement containing a guarantee that upon their return to work, no
union or labor organization would be organized. After the signing of agreement,
the operations of the corporation resumed.
5. The union reorganized and elected a new set of offices, the president of the union
thereafter filed two complaints charging petitioner with ULP.
6. The corporation countered that because of economic reversals, it was compelled
to close and cease its operations to prevent serious business losses.
7. Respondent contested the legality of the formation of Me Shurn independent
employees union and petitioners recognition of it as exclusive bargaining agent
of the employees.
8. Labor Arbiter dismiss the complaints for lack of merit and ruled that actual and
expected losses justified the closure of corporation and its dismissal of
employees.
9. NLRC reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter finding petitioners guilty of ULP
and that the closure of corporation shortly after respondent union had been
organized was allegedly done to bar formation of the union.
Issue: WON the dismissal of employees of petitioner is for an authorized cause?
Ruling:

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

No evidence was submitted to show the corporations alleged business losses. The
closure of the corporation was a mere subterfuge, a systematic approach intended to
dampen the enthusiasm of union members. Notwithstanding the petition for CE filed
by respondent and despite the knowledge of its pendency, the petitioner recognized a
new formed union and hastily signed with it an alleged CBA, their preference for the
new union was the expense of respondent union. An employer could be held guilty of
discrimination even if the preferred union was not company-dominated.
To constitute an ULP, the dismissal need not entirely and exclusively motivated by the
unions activities/affiliations, it is enough that the discrimination was a contributing
factor.
Bataan Shipyard vs NLRC
Facts:
1. Private Respondent NAFLY is a labor organization registered with DOLE. The
company filed with NLRC an application for retrenchment of 285 of its
employees on the ground that the firm had been incurring heavy losses. Some
employees who had been on sick leave earlier were considered retrenched and all
of those retrenched happen to be officers and members of NAFLU.
2. Executive labor arbiter declared the retrenchment as legal and valid. The
company however discriminated against the members of the NAFLU in the
selection of the employees to be retrenched and was found guilty of ULP.
Issue: WON the respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding
the firm guilty of having committed an act of ULP while thee retrenchment it had
sought was held to be legal and valid?
Ruling:
Petition devoid of merit.
It is not disputed that the retrenchment is valid. However, the manner in which this
prerogative is exercised should not be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It should
not be oppressive and abusive since it affects ones person and property. The action
taken by the firm in retrenching employees who are members of NAFLY becomes highly
suspect. It lead us to conclude that the firm had been discrimination against
membership in NAFLU, an act which amount to interference in the employees exercise
of their right of self-organization.

B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n

Mabeza vs NLRC
Facts:

1. Petitioner contends that around the first week of May, she and her co-employees
were asked by the hotels management to sign an instrument attesting the
companys compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision.
2. Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go the City Prosecutors Office to
swear to the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management.
3. As she refused to proceed, petitioner avers that she was ordered to turn over the
keys to her living quarters and remove her belongings from hotel premises.
When she attempted to return to work, the hotels cashier informed her that she
should not report to work and continue with her unofficial leave of absence.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
5. Private Respondent alleged that petitioner actually abandoned her work and
surreptitiously left without notice to the management.
6. Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioners complaint on the ground of loss of
confidence, NLRC affirmed the labor arbiters devcision.
Issue: WON the termination constitutes an ULP?
Ruling:
Without doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that
the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not,
together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the
employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act clearly preempts the
right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through
concerted action. or refusing to cooperate with the private respondent's scheme,
petitioner was obviously held up as an example to all of the hotel's employees, that they
could only cause trouble to management at great personal inconvenience. Implicit in
the act of petitioner's termination and the subsequent filing of charges against her was
the warning that they would not only be deprived of their means of livelihood, but also
possibly, their personal liberty.