Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
II.
b.
c.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance
therewith to foster industrial peace.
d.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
growth.
STATUTORY
A. Methods of Dispute Settlement
c.
Cases:
a. Kiok Loy v. NLRC (1983)
Summary: The Company, in its petition before the SC alleges violation of due
process when it was precluded from presenting further evidence in support of
its stand and when its request for further postponement was denied. LA and
NLRCs finding that it was guilty of ULP for refusal to bargain is unfounded. SC
dismissed the petition. The Company refuses to bargain in good faith when it
refused to make counter proposals to the proposed CBA.
Doctrine: Collective bargaining, which is defined as negotiations towards a
collective agreement is designed to stabilize the relation between the labor
and management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
It is a mutual obligation. However, the employer is not under any legal duty to
initiate contract negotiation. Collective bargaining is set in motion only when
the following jurisdictional preconditions are present:
(1) Possession of status of majority representation of employees
representative in accordance with the means of selection or designation by
LC
B. Trade Unionism
1.
2.
C. Worker Enlightenment
1.
2.
3.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
4.
Amount
Purpose
Beneficiary of deduction
2.
(ii)
(iii)
3.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
No LA shall be:
(1) Assigned to perform the functions of a Commission Attorney, nor
(2) Detailed to the office of any Commissioner
4.
5.
d.
e.
f.
Chairman and Commission shall appoint the staff and employees of the
Commission and its branches as the needs of the service require
(1) Subject to CSL rules and regulations
(2) Also to upgrade their current salaries, benefits, and other emoluments in
accordance with law
LAs shall have the same rank, receive annual salary equivalent to and be
entitled to the same allowances, retirement and other benefits and privileges
as those judges of the RTC
NOTES:
The NLRC sits en banc (24 Commissioners) only in 4 instances:
a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of
cases
b. To formulate policies affecting administration and operations
c. To allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided
by another division
d. To recommend appointment of LA
Each division has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases appealed from the LAs
within their respective territorial jurisdictions
But the NLRC also has original jurisdiction:
a.
b.
6.
NLRC shall have EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION over all cases decided by
LAs
c.
NOTES:
Compulsory arbitration is done by the LA
Proceedings after the LA decision is brought to the NLRC but this cannot be
considered as part of arbitration because on appeal, NLRC merely reviews the
LAs decision of errors of fact or law. It does not duplicate proceedings.
The NLRC also conducts compulsory arbitration but only in national interest
cases as certified or referred to it by the DOLE Sec.
Add the following under jurisdiction:
a. Money claims arising out of employment involving OFWs including claims for
damages
b. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled
by parties (Art. 124 New LC)
c. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance (Art.
233 new LC)
d. Other cases as may be provided by law
NOTE that any of the cases may be presented to and decided by a voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators BY AGREEMENT of parties under Art.
273 and 274 new LC)
If the employee is CBA-covered and terminated for alleged violation of personnel
policy the dispute should be resolved by VA
But if the CBA or personnel policy is NOT involved, the case should be brought
to the LA
In any case, the parties may agree to bring the case to VA
VENUE:
7
a.
b.
File in the RAB having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant
But for cases involving OFWs, complainant has the option of filing with the RAB
where:
(1) Complainant resides, or
(2) Principal office of employer is situated
7.
8.
NOTES:
The powers of the NRLC may be summed up into:
a. The power to make rules and regulations pertaining to its functions
b. Power to administer oath and issue subpoenas and summons
c. Power to investigate, hear, and decide disputes within its jurisdiction
9.
10. LC 221 Technical Rules Not Binding and Prior Resort to Amicable Settlement
a. In any proceeding before NLRC or LA, rules of evidence prevailing in courts of
law or equity shall not be controlling
(1) It is the spirit and intention of the LC
(2) They shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain facts
(3) Without regard to technicalities of law or procedure
b. In any proceeding before the NLRC or LA, parties may be represented by legal
counsel
(1) Duty of the Chairman, Pres. Comm., or Comm., or any LA to exercise
complete control over proceedings in all cases
c. LA shall exert all efforts towards amicable settlement of labor dispute within
his jurisdiction on or before first hearing
(1) Same rule for NLRC in exercise of its original jurisdiction
NOTES:
A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due
process. Its requirements are satisfied when parties are afforded fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain
NLRC 2011 Rules state that on or before the date set for conciliation or mediation
conference, respondent may file MTD based only on the following grounds:
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. Improper venue
c. Prescription (see Art. 304, 305, 306 new LC on the various periods)
d. Forum shopping
Amicable settlements are encouraged. LAs are to preside over mandatory
conciliation and mediation conferences. It is only upon the failure of the
conference when parties are required to submit position papers
LA to decide the case within 30 days after submission for decision WITHOUT
extension
NOTE that for cases involving OFWs, the decision shall be rendered within 90
days AFTER filing of the complaint
11. LC 222 Appearances and Fees
a. LC 222 (a) Non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or LA ONLY:
(1) If they represent themselves, or
(2) The represent their organization or members thereof
b. LC 222 (b) No attorneys fees, negotiation fees, or similar charges of any kind
from CB negotiations or conclusion of CBA shall be imposed on any union
member
(1) Attorneys fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be
agreed upon by the parties
(2) Agreement to the contrary NULL AND VOID
NOTES:
Obligation to pay attorneys fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to
the individual workers as direct responsibility
Contrary agreement VOID
APPEALS
12. LC 223 Appeal
a. Decisions, awards, orders of LA are final and executory
9
(1) UNLESS appealed to the NLRC within 10 calendar days from receipt
(2) Grounds for appeal:
(a) Prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of LA
(b) Decision, order, award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption
(c) On purely questions of law
(d) Serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to appellant
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
NLRC to decide all cases within 20 calendar days from receipt of answer of
appellee
(1) Decision of NLRC final and executory after 10 calendar days from receipt
g.
NOTES:
Requisites for perfection of appeal
a. Must be filed within reglementary period
b. Verified by appellant following Sec. 4, Rule 7, ROC
c. In the form of Memorandum of Appeal
(1) Contents:
(a) Grounds relied upon and relief prayed; date of receipt of decision
(b) Supporting documents
(2) Accompanied by a CNFS, proof of service on other party, proof of payment
of appeal fee, cash or surety bond
NOTE: Calendar days, not working days. If last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or
Legal Holiday, it may be filed in the next working day
If the decision contains an order of reinstatement, the LA issues partial writ of
execution. Employer must submit a report to LA on its compliance; otherwise,
contempt
Payroll reinstatement employee does not work but still gets paid
NLRC limits itself to reviewing those issues which are raised on appeal. Issues
raised on appeal shall be open for review
Under the NLRC 2011 Rules, amicable settlement is preferred even in appeal stage
Remedies:
a. From a decision, order, resolution of NLRC: File an MR
Within 10 calendar days from receipt
Ground: Palpable or patent errors
10
c.
d.
From Bureau Dir. Appeal to Office of Labor Sec within same period
c.
NOTES:
The following shall be compulsorily subjected to the GM, those arising from:
(1) Implementation or interpretation of CBA
(2) Interpretation and enforcement of company personnel policies
Grievance is defined as any question by either the employer regarding the
interpretation or application of CBA or company personnel policy or any claim by
either party that there is a violation of CBA or such policy
Grievance procedure is a MUST in every CBA
c.
The NLRC, DOLE Reg. Offices and Reg. Dir shall NOT entertain disputes,
grievances, matters under the jurisdiction of Vol-Arbs or panel
12
But if violations ae gross, these are to be treated as ULP which are to be heard
and decided by LA
Yet in gross violations, LC allows parties to submit ULP to VA
Same in employee dismissal where the SC in SMC v. NLRC held that it may be
submitted to VA, but in the absence of such agreement, it should be lodged with
the LA
19. LC 277 (i) Miscellaneous Provisions
a. To ensure speedy labor justice, periods within which to decide cases shall be
MANDATORY
(1) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by the rules
(2) Upon expiration of the period, a certification stating why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered shall be issued and a copy served upon
parties
(3) Case should be decided without further delay
20. Sec. 23, Title VII, Admin Code The National Conciliation and Mediation Board
a. NCMB shall absorb conciliation, mediation, and VA functions of the BLR
(1) NCMB Composition: Administrator and 2 Deputy Admin
(a) Appointed by the President upon recommendation of Labor Sec
(2) Attached agency under the administrative supervision of the Labor Sec.
b.
c.
NCMB shall have its main office in Metro Manila. NCMB Admin shall exercise
supervision over Con-Meds and all its personnel
(1) As many branches as there are admin regions with as many Con-Meds as
necessary
(2) Each branch to be headed by an Executive Con-Med
d.
Functions of NCMB:
(1) Formulate policies, programs, standards, procedures, manuals of operation
and guidelines pertaining to effective mediation and conciliation of labor
disputes;
(2) Perform preventive mediation and conciliation functions;
(3) Coordinate and maintain linkages with other sectors or institutions, and
other government authorities concerned with matters relative to the
prevention and settlement of labor disputes;
(4) Formulate policies, plans, programs, standards, procedures, manuals of
operation and guidelines pertaining to the promotion of cooperative and
non-adversarial schemes, grievance handling, voluntary arbitration and
other voluntary modes of dispute settlement;
(5) Administer the voluntary arbitration program; maintain or update a list of
voluntary arbitrations; compile arbitration awards and decisions;
(6) Provide counselling and preventive mediation assistance particularly in the
administration of collective agreements;
(7) Monitor and exercise technical supervision over the Board programs being
implemented in the regional offices; and
13
(8) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned by the
Secretary.
e.
E. Industrial Peace
1.
2.
c.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance
therewith to foster industrial peace.
d.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
14
3.
NOTES:
Employees participatory right is guaranteed under the Constitution and the LC
Extent of right:
It does not carry management rights. No power to approve or disapprove a
policy or a managerial decision
It gives an opportunity to suggest. It is a right of expression, not a power to
decide
The LMC reserves the right of an individual or group of employees to present
grievances, with or without CBA, with or without the EBR
Law allows, but it does not require, the creation of LMC
It is a communication mechanism, short of a CBA
4.
5.
6.
Cases:
a. Philippine Airlines Inc. v. NLRC (1993)
Summary: PALEA filed a complaint for ULP before the NLRC against PAL for the
latters unilateral implementation of its Code of Discipline. PALEA contends that
they should have participated in the crafting of the Code and that there was
violation of due process when employees were dismissed because of alleged
violations in the Code.
15
G. Wage Fixing
1.
(a) All striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work
(b) Employer shall:
(i)
Immediately resume operations
(ii)
Readmit workers under same terms and conditions before
c.
d. Strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics, and similar medical institutions shall,
to every extent possible, be avoided
(1) WHY? National concern and highest respect to right of patients to life and
health
(2) All serious efforts be exhausted to substantially minimize, or avoid their
adverse effects
(a) BY labor, management, and government
(3) In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation:
(a) It shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to
provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical/health
personnel whose movements shall be unhampered to protect its
patients and in emergency cases
(4) In these cases, the Secretary SHALL:
(a) Immediately assume jurisdiction or certify the same to NLRC for
compulsory arbitration
(b) WHEN: Within 24 hours from knowledge
(5) Parties are strictly enjoined to comply with the orders, prohibitions or
injunctions issued by the Secretary or the NLRC
(a) Otherwise, immediate disciplinary action
e. The President shall not be precluded from:
(1) Determining the industries that are indispensable to the national interest
(2) Intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor
dispute in order to settle or terminate the same
8. LC 99 - Regional Minimum Wages
a. Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards shall set the minimum wage
rates for:
(1) Agricultural and non-agricultural employees
(2) Workers in each and every region of the country
2.
Any person, company, partnership, other entity engaged in business shall file
and register annually with the appropriate Regional Board, NLRC, NSO an
itemized listing of their labor component
17
c.
d.
e.
Pendency of dispute arising from wage distortion shall not delay applicability of
any increase pursuant to the law or Wage Order
f.
g.
All workers paid by result shall receive not less than the prescribed wage rates
per 8 hours work a day or a proportion thereof for working less than 8 hours
h.
NOTES:
Wage Distortion If the pay advantage of a position over another is removed or
significantly reduced by a pay adjustment required by a wage order, such pay
advantage should somehow be restored
Law does not require full elimination of salary differences, severe contraction
is enough
Employer is obliged to try to correct wage distortion; law says SHALL
Previous pay advantage is the aim but not necessarily to the last peso
H. Labor Injunction
1.
NOTES:
No-Injunction Policy; Labor disputes should, as much as possible, be resolved by
the parties themselves; government intervention is the exception
Issuance of injunction has to follow the stringent procedure in Art. 225(e) or LC
218
NOTE: For national interest cases, injunction may be issued automatically by the
Labor Sec even when none of the parties asked for it
18
2.
I.
For TROs, complainant must allege that unless a TRO shall be issued without
notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will be
unavoidable
(1) TRO issued upon testimony under oath, sufficient if sustained, to justify the
NLRC in issuing a TRO upon hearing after notice
(2) Effective for no longer than 20 days, void at expiration
3.
4.
Tripartism
1.
Labor Sec or his duly authorized representatives may from time to time call a
national, regional, or industrial tripartite conference of representatives of
government, workers, employers
(1) For consideration, adoption of voluntary codes of principles designed to
promote industrial peace based on social justice
(2) To align labor movement relations with established priorities in economic
and social development
19
DEFINITION OF TERMS
I.
STATUTORY REFERENCE
II.
A. LC 212 Definitions
B. Rule 1, Sec. 1, Book V, Implementing Rules - Definition of Terms
A.
III.
COMMON TERMS
A. Employer
1.
2.
Cases:
a. Feati University v. Bautista (1966)
Summary: This is a consolidation of 3 cases which stemmed from the dispute
between the University and the Faculty Club wherein the latter staged a strike
and the matter was certified by the President to the CIR. One of the issues
raised by the University is its claim that the CIR has no jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter because RA 875 is not applicable to the
University as it is an educational institution and not an industrial
establishment. As such, it cannot be considered an employer in
contemplation of said Act. The University likewise argues that RA 875 is not
applicable to the members of the Faculty Club because the latter are
independent contractors and, therefore, not employees within the purview of
said Act. The SC held that it is an employer.
Doctrine: As used in the IPA, an employer includes any person acting in the
interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any LO
20
(otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one acting the capacity or
agent of such LO.
In using the word includes and not means, Congress did not intend to give
a complete definition of Employer but rather that such definition should be
complementary to what is commonly understood as employer. Congress
intended the term to be understood in a broad meaning because: (1) the
statutory definition includes not only a principal employer but also a person
acting in the interest of the employer, and (2) the Act itself specifically
enumerated those who are not included in the term employer. Hence, we use
the term as commonly used.
b.
c.
d.
21
Doctrine: LC 281 and Sec. 6, IR of Book VI, Rule VIII-A specifically require the
employer to inform the probationary employee of the reasonable standards at
the time of his engagement, not any time later; else, the latter shall be
considered a regular employee.
An employees failure to meet sales or work quota falls under the concept of
gross inefficiency, which in turn is analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a
just cause for dismissal under LC 282. However, in order to be considered a
valid productivity standard and thereby validate a dismissal, managements
prerogative of fixing the quota must be exercised in good faith.
The ruling in NYK International v. NLRC was overturned in Alba v. Yupangco. To
hold corporate officers solidarily liable, there must be a showing of malice or
bad faith. In this case, there is no showing that the officers acted in bad faith or
with malice in effecting the termination of Aliling. Hence, the corporate officers
cannot be held solidarily liable with the company.
e.
B. Employee
1.
2.
Cases:
a. Producers Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC (1998)
Summary: The Bank was placed under conservatorship by the BSP. The Union
sought the implementation of the CBA provisions which the conservatorship
denied. The Union, after a 6-month deadlock, filed a UP case against the Bank
for CBA violation. The LA dismissed the complaint. The NLRC reversed. SC
agreed with NLRC.
Doctrine: A conservator cannot rescind a valid and existing contract. The CBA
is the law between the parties. Thus, the conservator had no authority to
disallow the implementation of the CBA, especially considering that the ideals
of social justice and protection of labor are guaranteed not only by the LC, but
more importantly by the fundamental law of the land.
22
The retirement of an employee does not, in itself, affect his employment status
especially when it involves all rights and benefits due to him, since these must
be protected as though there had been no interruption of service.
While the individual complainants are the real party in interest, in issues
involving monetary claims and benefits, the union is not denied its right to sue
on behalf of its members (Esso Philippines, Inc. v. Malayang Mangagawa sa
Esso)
b.
2.
3.
2.
E. Company Union
1.
2.
F. Labor Dispute
1.
2.
Cases:
a. Feati University v. Bautista (1966)
Summary: This is a consolidation of 3 cases which stemmed from the dispute
between the University and the Faculty Club wherein the latter staged a strike
and the matter was certified by the President to the CIR. One of the issues
24
raised by the University is its claim that there is no labor dispute in this case
thus the Presidential certification was unwarranted. The SC held that there is a
labor dispute and that the certification was proper.
Doctrine: The term labor dispute is defined in RA 875. It includes any
controversy concerning terms, tenure, or conditions of employment, or
concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
employment regardless of whether the disputants stand in proximate relation
of employer and employee.
The test of whether a controversy comes within the definition of labor
dispute depends on whether the controversy involves or concerns terms,
tenure, or condition of employment or representation.
b.
c.
25
As the case is linked with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs with labor
tribunals. The claim of SMC for damages cannot vest jurisdiction to the regular
courts. The damage claim is interwoven with a labor dispute and would have to
be ventilated before the admin agency established for these disputes. To grant
otherwise would be to sanction split jurisdiction.
26
BASIS OF RIGHT
A.
B. Constitution
1. 1987 Constitution:
a. Art. III, Sec. 8 - The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
2. Art. XIII, Sec. 3
a. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.
b.
c.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance
therewith to foster industrial peace.
d.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
growth.
27
3. 1935 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 6 - The right to form associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
4. 1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 7 - The right to form associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
C. Statutory
1.
NOTES:
Unlike in the Industrial Peace Act, employees of non-profit firms are allowed to
unionize
All persons may organize for a lawful purpose but not all persons may form labor
unions
2.
NOTES:
Government employees may organize, may unionize, and may negotiate collective
negotiation agreements (CNAs) or MOAs with employers
These have to be registered with CSC and DOLE
Governing law is EO 180
Applicable to all government employees
EXCEPT:
(a) AFP
(b) Police officers and policemen
(c) Firemen
(d) Jail guards
But for government corporations organized under the Corporation Code
and registered with the SEC, governing law is LC, not EO 180
High level employees doing policy-making, managerial, or confidential duties
are not eligible to join the RAF organization
Right of government employees not as expansive
They cannot negotiate terms and conditions fixed by law
Only those not otherwise fixed by law are negotiable
3.
28
b.
c.
Supervisory employees:
(1) Not eligible to for membership in the CBU of the RAFE
(2) But may join, assist, or form a separate CBU and/or LLOs of their own
RAF Union and the Supervisors union within the same establishment may join
the same federation or national union
4.
5.
6.
Cases:
a. UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio (1999)
Summary: Private respondents filed the instant petition before the Med-Arb
seeking injunctive relief and the nullification of the union elections where
petitioners were elected as the new set of union officers. They contend, in the
main, that the election was conducted in violation of the unions CBL. The MedArb and the BLR both held that the election was null and void for noncompliance with the unions CBL. In fact, non-union members were allowed to
vote in said election which cannot be countenanced. The petitioners went to
the SC on petition for certiorari. The SC affirmed the BLR decision and upheld
the nullification of the elections for violation of the unions CBL.
Doctrine: Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form, join, or
assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining or their
mutual aid and protection (Art. 244, LC). Whether employed for a definite
period or not, any employee shall be considered as such, beginning on his first
day of service, for purposes of membership in labor union (Art. 277(c)).
ILO Convention No. 87, Art. 3 provides that workers organizations shall have
the right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect their
representatives in full freedom, free from any interference from public
authorities. A unions CBL is the fundamental law that governs the relationship
between and among the union members. This is where the rights, duties, and
obligations, powers, functions, and authority of the officers as well as the
members are defined. It should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to
law, good morals, or public policy.
b.
D. International Instruments
Art. 2
(1) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
2. ICESCR
a. Art. 2
(1) Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps,
individually and through international assistance and co-operation,
especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available
resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
(2) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that
the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
(3) Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national
economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the
economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.
b.
Art. 8(a) - The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
(1) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his
choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the
promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No
restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those
prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others;
3. ICCPR
a. Art. 22
(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.
(2) No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those
which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order
(ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the
imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the
police in their exercise of this right.
(3) Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International
Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative
31
c.
II.
WORKERS QUALIFICATION
A.
elected as the new set of union officers. They contend, in the main, that the election
was conducted in violation of the unions CBL. The Med-Arb and the BLR both held that
the election was null and void for non-compliance with the unions CBL. In fact, nonunion members were allowed to vote in said election which cannot be countenanced.
The petitioners went to the SC on petition for certiorari. The SC affirmed the BLR
decision and upheld the nullification of the elections for violation of the unions CBL.
Summary: To become a union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to
become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for
union membership is usually embodied in the unions CBL. An employee who becomes
a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this
new status and becomes bound by the unions rules and regulations.
Union election v. Certification Election - Union election is held pursuant to the unions
CBL, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. Compare this with
certification election which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent in a bargaining unit. In certification election, all
employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in the
election. But a member of the collective bargaining unit cannot vote in a union election
if he is not a member of said union.
III.
petition. The Labor Sec. denied the appeal and MR of the Company. On appeal to
the CA, the CA issued injunction. However, a new union, PIGLAS, was formed and
petitioned for certification election. HHE Union dissolved. The Company opposed
alleging that the PIGLAS union is just the same as the HHE Union formed to
circumvent the CA injunction. The DOLE-NCR denied the petition to cancel
PIGLASs registration. BLR sustained. CA dismissed the Companys petition, hence,
the latter went to SC. SC affirmed by ruling that PIGLAS did not commit fraud or
misrepresentation.
Doctrine: The charge that the LO committed fraud and misrepresentation in
securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny because
once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the rights accorded
to registered organizations.
The fact that some of PIGLASs members were also members of the old union is not
a ground for cancelling the new unions registration. The right of any person to join
an organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another
one.
2.
3.
itself. Implicit in the concept of collective bargaining towards industrial peace is the
confidence that must be displayed by management in the sense of responsibility of
union officials to assure that the two indispensable elements in industry and
production could work together. The moment management displays unwarranted
distrust in the union officials, then integrity of the collective bargaining process is
called into question.
There is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the right
to form unions to take care of their interests vis--vis their employers. Their
freedom to form organizations would be rendered nugatory if they could not
choose their own leaders to speak on their own behalf and to bargain for them. The
result of the petitioners demand is to call into question the undeniable right of
workers to choose their leaders, who must be treated as such with all respect to
which they are legitimately entitled.
4.
IV.
B. ALL EMPLOYEES
1.
b.
c.
3.
LC 212(f) - EMPLOYEE
a. Includes any person in the employ of an employer
b. Shall NOT be limited to the employees of a particular employer
(1) UNLESS LC expressly states
c. Includes any individual whose work has ceased
(1) As a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute, or
(2) Because of any ULP if he has not obtained any other substantially
equivalent and regular employment
4.
Non-Profit Organization
a. FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation Inc. v. Trajano (1987)
Summary: The Union filed a Petition for Certification Election. The Company
opposed on the ground that a similar petition involving the same issues and
the same parties is pending resolution before the SC. The Union admitted that
it filed a similar petition previously but was denied because the company is a
non-stock non-profit medical institution as such, under LC 244, its employees
cannot organize a union. However, with the amendment of LC 244 removing
such restriction, the Union files this second petition. The Med-Arb and DOLE Dir
granted the petition. The Company raises the issue to the SC. SC denies the
petition.
Doctrine: Under the amendment of BO 70 to Art 244, there is no doubt that
RAFE of non-profit medical institutions are now permitted to form, organize, or
join labor unions of their choice for purposes of collective bargaining. Since the
Union has complied with all the requisites for calling of certification election, it
was incumbent upon the DOLE Dir to conduct said election to ascertain the
bargaining representative of the employees,
36
The legal protection granted to the right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by
operation of law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed
shop. But RA 3350 provided an exception. RA 3350 merely excludes ipso jure from
the application and coverage of the closed shop agreement the employees
belonging to any religious sect which prohibit affiliation with LOs. This merely
means that in spite of the closed-shop agreement, members of such sects cannot
be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they
are not members of the union. It still leaves to the members the liberty and the
power to affiliate, or not, with labor unions.
The primary effects of the exemption is the protection of these employees against
the aggregate force of the CBA, and relieving certain citizens of a burden on their
religious beliefs; and by eliminating to a certain extent economic insecurity due to
unemployment.
2.
E. SUPERVISORS
1.
2.
b.
c.
Supervisory employees
(1) Those who, in the interest of employer, effectively recommend such
managerial actions
(2) The exercise of such authority:
(a) Must not be merely routinary or clerical in nature
(b) But requires use of independent judgment
Rank-and-File employees
(1) All employees not falling within any of the above definitions
NOTES:
Managerials and Supervisors are differentiated in LC 212(m)
NOTE: It is the power of the position, not the title, that is determinative
To make a supervisor, the power to recommend must not be merely routinary or
clerical
Test:
a. Paper Industries Corporation v. Laguesma (2000)
Summary: PBSTSEU instituted a Petition for Certification Election to determine
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the supervisory and technical staff
employees of PICOP. Med-Arb issued an order granting the petition and the
holding of a certification election with 4 choices (3 unions, 1 no union choice).
This was upheld by the Labor Sec. During pre-election conference, PICOP
objected to the inclusion of certain employees. PICOP maintains that Section
Heads and Supervisors, who have been designated as Section and Unit
managers,
were converted to managerial employees
under
the
decentralization and reorganization program. The Med-Arb excluded these
employees. The Labor USec reversed and ordered their inclusion. PICOP
appeals. SC dismissed the petition. A close observation reveals that the
employees are supervisors as they do not lay down company policies. Their
powers are merely recommendatory and does not exercise independent
judgment as required by law.
Doctrine: As held in United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union v. Leguesma, Court
held that managerial employees are ranked as:
(1) Top and Middle Managers authority to devise, implement, and control
strategic and operational policies; these are the managers per se
(2) First Line Managers to ensure that such policies are carried out by the
RAFE; these are the supervisors
The mere fact that an employee is designated as manager does not ipso
facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job
38
c.
4.
Right
a. United Pepsi Cola v. Laguesma (1998)
39
40
Doctrine: The Industrial Peace Act explicitly provides that employees, including
supervisors, shall have the right to self-organization. Supervisors may even
form separate organizations of their own. Thus, supervisors are entitled to
engage in union activities and any discrimination against them constitutes ULP.
The arguments of the company ignores the dual status of supervisors as a
representative of management AND as an employee.
c.
F. ALIENS
1.
G. SECURITY GUARDS
NOTES:
Security guards used to be barred from joining RAF LO. But this disqualification has
been removed. They may join LO of the RAF or that of Supervisors, depending on
their rank.
1.
current CBA, they have the right to form a union of their own, except those
performing managerial functions. FLAMES filed a similar petition seeking to
represent employees with Pay Grades VII to XIV, since there is no other supervisory
union at MERALCO. The Labor Sec affirmed the Med-Arb and called for the
certification election. MERALCO questions, among others, the inclusion of security
guards in the representation by the unions arguing that RA 6715 disqualifies
supervisory employees and security guards from membership in an LO of a RAF. SC
dismissed MERALCOs contentions and held that FSCEA and FLAMES are
representing supervisory employees only and are the options in the certification
election. Security guards have the right to organize.
Doctrine: RA 6715 was passed which reorganized the employee-ranks by including
a 3rd group, or the supervisory employees, and laying down the distinction between
supervisors and managers in LC 212 (m), depending on whether the employee has
the power to lay down and execute management policies (managers) or merely to
recommend them (supervisors).
EO No. 111 eliminated LC 245 on the disqualification of security guards. What was
retained was the disqualification of managerial employees. With this elimination,
security guards are thus free to join a RAF organization. The 2 nd sentence of LC 245
disqualifies supervisory employees from membership in LO of the RAFE. It does
NOT include security guards in the disqualification. The IRR of RA 6715, insofar as
they disqualify security guards, is null and void. As such, security guards may thus
join a RAF or Supervisory union, depending on their rank, in recognition of their
constitutional right to self-organization. However, the SC expressed its concerns on
the possible effects in case security personnel go on strike.
42
LC 212(m) - Definitions
1. Managerial employee is one who is vested with the power or prerogatives to:
a. Lay down and execute management policies, and/or
b. Hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline
employees
2. Supervisory employees
a. Those who, in the interest of employer, effectively recommend such
managerial actions
b. The exercise of such authority:
(1) Must not be merely routinary or clerical in nature
(2) But requires use of independent judgment
3. Rank-and-File employees
a. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions
C. Test:
1.
2.
3.
4.
44
or confidential employees. This was denied by the Med-Arb and the Labor USec.
Hence, this petition. The SC held that the employees are not managerial
employees. It also held that the employees are not confidential employees
because the Bank failed to specify which employees perform tasks connected to
labor relations.
Doctrine: Managerial employees are defined in LC 212(m). Confidential employees
are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons
who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies, specifically in the
field of labor relations.
LC 245 does not directly prohibit confidentials from engaging in union activities.
However, under the doctrine of necessary implication, the disqualification of
managerials equally applies to confidentials. The confidential employee rule
justifies exclusion of confidentials because in the normal course of their duties they
become aware of management policies relating to labor relations. However, when
the employee does not have access to confidential labor relations information,
there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees from forming, assisting,
or joining a union.
5.
6.
2.
46
II.
WORKER/MEMBER OF COOPERATIVE
A.
47
III.
NON-EMPLOYEES
Republic Planters Bank v. Laguesma (1996)
Summary: Petitioner filed a petition for certification election to determine the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of all regular employees outside the bargaining unit of
the Bank. This proposed unit consist of employees considered as contractual employees by
the Bank. This was opposed by the Bank. The Med-Arb dismissed the petition on the
ground that there is already a certified EBA representing the appropriate bargaining unit
within the bank. On appeal, Labor USec reversed the Med-Arb decision. However, on
reconsideration, the Labor USec declared some employees as regular and ordered their
inclusion in the existing EBA. Both parties appealed. SC held that the petition was
premature because it was filed outside the 60-day period immediately before the
expiration of the standing CBA.
Doctrine: In Trade Unions of the Philippines v. Laguesma, the SC held that when LLO has
been certified as the SEBA, it means that it shall remain as such during the existence of
the CBA, to the exclusion of other LLOs, and no petition questioning the majority status of
said incumbent SEBA or any certification election be conducted outside the 60-day
freedom period immediately before expiry of the CBA.
48
In Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Drilon, the SC held that if the union members are
NOT employees, no right to organize for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as
bargaining agent can be recognized. Since the persons involved are not employees of the
company, SC held that they are not entitled to the constitutional right to join or form a
labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.
In La Suerte Sugar and Cigarette Factory v. Dir. Of Labor Relations, the SC held that it is
important in the determination of who shall be included in the proposed bargaining unit
because, it is the sine qua non, the fundamental and essential condition that a bargaining
unit be composed of employees. Failure to establish this juridical relationship between the
union members and the employer affects the legality of the union itself. It means the
ineligibility of the union members to present a petition for certification election as well as
to vote therein.
PARTY PROTECTED
Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz (1972)
Summary: Cebu Shipyard is employing laborers and employees belonging to two rival unions
(MWU and ALU). The Company entered into a CBA with ALU which provided for, among others,
a profit-sharing scheme where 10% of the net profits are to be delivered to ALU for distribution
to ALL employees of the company. The members of MWU did not get their shares for the 2 nd
installment because they did not like to go to the ALU office to collect their shares. Upon
warning of ALU, the Company did not deliver the amounts intended for MWU to ALU. Instead,
the Company delivered the money to the Labor Administrator. MWU sues for the recovery of
the amount. The CFI ordered the Company to remit the money to ALU for distribution to MWU
employees. ALU intervened and interposed an appeal. SC affirmed the decision of the CFI.
Doctrine: The terms and conditions of a CBA 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. Nor does it
suffice as a defense that the claim is made on behalf of non-members of the EBA. It is a wellsettled doctrine that the benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in the CBU,
including those who do not belong to the chosen bargaining unit.
In United Restaurors Employees and Labor Union v. Torres, the SC held that the right to be the
exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate CBU is vested in the labor union
designated and selected for such purpose by the majority of the employees in the unit
concerned.
The labor union that gets the majority vote as EBA does not act for its members alone. It
represents all the employees in such a bargaining unit.
49
NON-ABRIDGMENT OF RIGHT
I.
PROVISIONS
A.
A.
B. LC 249 (a) Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations It shall be ULP for a LO, its
officers, agents, or representatives:
1. To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organizaion
a. However, LO shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition and retention of membership
C. LC 288 Penalties
1. Any violation of the provisions of the LC declared to be unlawful or penal in nature:
a. Shall be punished with:
(1) Fine of not less than P1,000 nor more than P10,000, or
(2) Imprisonment of not less than 3 months nor more than 3 years, or
(3) Both at the discretion of the court
b. EXCEPT:
(1) As otherwise provided in the LC, or
(2) The acts complained of hinges on a question if interpretation or
implementation of ambiguous provisions of an existing CBA
2.
3.
Any criminal offense punished in the LC shall be under the concurrent jurisdiction
of the Municipal or City Courts and the CFI
a. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding
D. LC 290 Offenses
1. Offenses penalized under the LC and the rules and regulations issued pursuant
thereto
a. Shall PRESCRIBE in 3 years
2. All ULP arising from Book V:
a. Shall be filed with the appropriate agency within 1 year from accrual of such
ULP
(1) OTHERWISE, forever barred
50
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, IN
GENERAL
I.
POLICY
II.
2.
LC 212(h) - LLO
a. Any LO registered with DOLE
b. Includes any branch or local thereof
3.
Cases
a. UST v. NLRC (1990)
Summary: UST terminated the employment of 16 union officers and directors
of the Faculty Union on the ground that in publishing or causing to be
published libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector , they
have committed grave misconduct and serious disrespect as well as conduct
unbecoming of a faculty member. The Union then filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The Labor Sec issued a return-to-work order and ordered the NLRC
to proceed with dispatch. The NLRC ordered the readmission of the faculty
members. UST appeals and argues that its grant of substantially equivalent
academic assignments instead of actual reinstatement is just and valid. SC
held that what the UST did was not proper. NLRC should not have ordered the
alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement.
Doctrine: The NLRCs duty was to implement the RTW Order of the Labor Sec.
Since the Sec.s order specifically provided that the dismissed faculty be
readmitted under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the
dispute, the NLRC should have directed actual reinstatement. It erred in
granting the alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement.
The grant of substantially equivalent academic assignments cannot be
sustained. It cannot be considered as reinstatement under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike. LC 263(g) contemplates actual
reinstatement or return of actual teaching loads to the dismissed faculty
members. LC 263(g) was devised to maintain status quo.
b.
52
e.
San Miguel Corp., etc. v. San Miguel, etc. (2007) Trade Union Center
cannot create a local or chapter thru chartering
Summary: Respondent is a registered chapter of PDMP which filed 3 separate
petitions for certification election to represent the 3 division of SMC. This was
dismissed for fragmenting a single bargaining unit. Petitioner, as the
incumbent EBA of SMC, filed with DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation
of respondents registration and its dropping from the rolls of LLOs on the
ground, among others, that PDMP is not a LLO but a trade union center (TUC)
and cannot create a local or chapter. DOLE-NCR revoked the certification but
on the basis of non-compliance with the 20% membership requirement. This
was reversed by the BLR and the CA. The petitioner raises the issue of the
respondents personality as LLO before the SC. SC granted the petition. It held
that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter. Thus, respondent must
comply with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an
independent union, including the 20% membership requirement.
Doctrine: LLO is defined as any LO duly registered with the DOLE, and includes
any branch or local thereof.
LC mandates strict compliance with the requirements on registration because
LLO is entitled to specific rights under the LC and are involved in activities
directly affecting matters of public interest. The acquisition of these rights
depends on whether the LO has attained the status of an LLO.
Procedure for registration of a local or chapter of LO is provided in Book V IRR.
(1) The procedure enunciates a two-fold procedure:
(a) First is the affiliation of an in independent union with a federation or
national union or industry union
(b) Second, the direct creation of a local or chapter through chartering
53
LC 212(h) - LLO
a. Any LO registered with DOLE
b. Includes any branch or local thereof
1.
Cases:
a. Sta. Lucia East v. Secretary of Labor (2009)
Summary: Summary: Following the denial of the Med-Arb of a previous petition
for certification due to the inappropriateness of the bargaining unit, the CLUPSLECC re-registered to cover only RAFE on SLECC as SLECCWA and filed a
petition for certification. This was opposed by the Company in an MTD on the
ground that it voluntarily recognized SMSLEC as the EBA. Ultimately, a CBA
was entered into between the Company and SMSLEC. The Med-Arb dismissed
SLECCWAs petition on the ground of contract bar rule. Labor Sec. and CA
reversed and held that the subsequent negotiations and registration of a CBA
could not bar SLECCWAs petition. SC found no error and held that the
voluntary recognition of SMSLEC was valid.
Doctrine: SLECC cannot ignore that CLUP-SECC was a LLO at the time of
SLECCs voluntary recognition of SMSLEC even if it covered an inappropriate
bargaining unit. SMSLEC and SLECC cannot, by themselves, decide whether
CLUP-SECC and its Affiliates represented an appropriate bargaining unit.
The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds
for cancellation of registration, UNLESS such inclusion is due to
54
55
c.
d.
56
Expulsion from the corporation does not affect membership with the labor
union.
C. Company Union
1.
2.
3.
Cases:
a. Oceanic Air Products v. Court of Industrial Relations (1963)
Summary: The Complainant Union (CU) filed a ULP case against the company
and the Respondent Union (RU). CU alleged that after it sent repeated written
demands to the management to improve working conditions, the management
dismissed union members and officials and that other CU officers disaffiliated
and transferred to RU. The CIR held that the dismissal was due to union
activities and that the RU is a company dominated and assisted union. Hence,
this appeal. The SC agreed with the CIR. The company is guilty of unionbusting when it dismissed the union members and officials after their
demands. The RU was also company-dominated.
Doctrine: Facts show that the employees joined the RU because the treasurer
and manager of the company forced them to sign a blank form, presumably an
application in RU, under pain of dismissal. It also appears that officials of the
company were present during the election of the RU officials. No RU member
or official was dismissed during the companys alleged retrenchment policy
after years of loss.
b.
D. Workers Association
57
1.
2.
For mutual aid and protection or for any legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining
Implementing Rules, Book V, Rule 1(ccc)
a. Workers Association refers to an association of workers organized for the
mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other
than collective bargaining
58
See RA 9481
II.
Cases:
A. United Seamans Union of the Philippines v. Davao Shipowners Association
(1967)
Summary: USUP presented a set of demands to the Company on employment benefits.
The Company called USUPs attention to an existing CBA with another union, the
Association. USUP filed a notice of strike. The DOLE-RO called the parties and
agreement was executed between them respecting the status quo and the current
CBA. As such, USUP filed a petition for certification election. However, the Company
terminated the employment of around 64 employees who were members of USUP.
USUP also filed a ULP case against the company predicated upon the dismissal of the
USUP members. USUP also went on strike. The CIR dismissed the ULP complaint and
declared the strike illegal. Hence, this petition. SC agrees. The strike was illegal and
unjustified.
Doctrine: An LO is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of promoting the
interests of labor without the unnecessary labor disputes. That is why it is given
personality and recognition in concluding collective bargaining agreements. But if it is
made use of as a subterfuge, or as a means to subvert valid commitments, it defeats
its own purpose, for it tends to undermine the harmonious relations between
management and labor. The situation does not deserve any approving sanction from
the Court.
B. Guijarno v. Court of Industrial Relations (1973)
Summary: ULP cases were filed against the Company and the Union by employees who
were dismissed by virtue of a closed-shop provision. These laborers became
employees of the company even before the execution of the CBA containing the
closed-shop provision. The CIR found their dismissal justified under said provision. The
SC reversed and held that a closed-shop provision should not be given retro-active
effect. It applies only to persons who are to be hired and who are not yet members of
any labor organization.
Doctrine: The union is the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would
be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is
helpless as against a powerful employer may, through concerted effort and activity,
achieve the goal of economic well-being. Workers unorganized are weak; workers
organized are strong. Necessarily then, they join labor unions.
It is well-settled that a closed-shop provision in a CBA is NOT to be given a retroactive
effect so as to preclude its being applied to employees already in the service. In order
that an employer may be deemed bund, under a CBA, to dismiss employees for nonunion membership, the stipulation to this effect must be so clear and unequivocal as to
leave no room for doubt thereon (Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co.)
Closed-shop agreement authorized under Sec. 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act
should apply to persons to be hired or to employees who are NOT yet members of any
LO. To hold otherwise, the employees in a company who are members of a minority
union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or
contracting union. This would render nugatory the right of all employees to selforganization and to form, join, or assist LOs of their own choosing (Freeman Shirt
Manuf. Co. Inc. v. CIR)
59
UNION REGISTRATION
PROCEDURE
I.
NOTES:
This incorporates the amendments of RA 9481 which lapsed into law on May
25, 2007
2.
NOTES:
Every employee, even temporary ones is eligible for union membership beginning
on the employees first day of work
Except as provided for in Art. 254
The existence of an EER is essential for the exercise of the right of selforganization for purposes of collective bargaining. Absence of such
relationship affects the legality of the union itself (La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette
Factory, 1983)
-
On LLOs
Not every LO is a union (e.g. a workers association is not a union)
Not every union is an LLO
It is the fact of being registered with the DOLE that makes an LO legitimate
in the sense that it is clothed with legal personality to deal with the
employer in representation of its members
Once it is an LLO, it acquires the rights enumerated in LC 242
Non-registration does not make the LO illegitimate or illegal
Freedom of association is constitutionally guaranteed
Effect of non-registration: It does not possess the rights in LC 242
Unions CBL
A unions CBL governs the relationship between and among its members
The unions CBL cannot disregard the laws!
3.
NOTES:
Federation of National Union
The distinction between the two has vanished considering that they have the
same requirements
Originally though, a grouping of local unions was called a national union
while a grouping of national unions was called a federation
62
Chartered Local
The local union created in an enterprise is called a chartered local or local or
chapter
To facilitate its growth, their creation must be simple and easy:
(1) No more 20% requirement
(2) Can adopt its own CBL
(3) Submission of books of accounts, which previously was a registration
requirement, has been done away with
Revocation of Charter
The federation or national union may revoke the charter issued to the local or
chapter
This is done by:
(a) Serving on the local or chapter a VERIFIED NOTICE of revocation
(b) Copy furnished the BLR
(c) On the ground of disloyalty or such other grounds as may be specified
in the federations CBL
Revocation will divest the local/chapter of its legal personality upon receipt of
the notice by the BLR
UNLESS in the meantime, the local/chapter has acquired independent
registration
Affiliation
An independent union who wants to affiliate with a federation or national union
submits the issue to its members
If majority of them vote affirmatively, a resolution or request to affiliate is
presented to the chosen federation or national union
If the latter accepts the affiliation, it offers a CONTRACT of affiliation
Affiliation does NOT cause the local union to lose its legal personality
Disaffiliation
The affiliate MAY disaffiliate but the terms of the contract of affiliation have to
be observed
It is believed that disaffiliation cannot absolutely be prohibited, but it can be
restricted by the contract of affiliation
Substitutionary Doctrine
The substitutionary doctrine holds that the employees cannot revoke the
validly executed collective bargaining contract with their employer by the
simple expedient of changing their bargaining agent
Ex: If Union A negotiated a CBA with the employer but was replaced by Union
B, the latter must respect the contract
Employees cannot renege on the CBA by changing their collective
bargaining agent
But the latter may negotiate with the management for the shortening of
the CBA
4.
ICESCR, Art. 8(b) The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to
ensure:
a. The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations
and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union
organizations
63
5.
ICESCR, Art. 8(c) - The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to
ensure:
a. The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than
those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others
6.
7.
8.
Cases:
a. Mariwasa v. Sec. of Labor (2009)
Summary: Mariwasa Siam Ceramics Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Union Registration against the Union for alleged violation of LC 234 for not
complying with the 20% requirement due to the disaffiliation of 102 members
who executed affidavits recanting their union membership. The Company also
alleged massive fraud on the part of the Union in violation of LC 239. DOLE
RD granted the petition and cancelled the Unions certification. This was
reversed by the BLR on appeal which was affirmed by the CA. SC dismissed the
Companys petition. It held that the affidavits were standardized and pro forma
and thus no probative value. It also held that the Unions failure to be
mathematically precise with its membership is of no moment because it met
the 20% requirement.
Doctrine: Even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the
legitimacy of the union as an LO must be affirmed. While it is true that the
withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation from the union, the
fact remains that at the time of the unions application for registration, the
affiants were members of the union and they comprised more than the
required 20% members for purposes of registration as an LO. The LC does not
require that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership
requirement all throughout its existence. It merely requires it during its
application for union registration.
NOTE: In La Suerte Cigar v. BLR Director, the SC made a distinction:
Withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed voluntary
unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, whereas withdrawals made
after the filing of the petition are deemed involuntary,
b.
64
reversed by the BLR and this reversal was affirmed by the CA. SC denied the
Companys petition.
Doctrine: Once registered with the DOLE, a union is considered an LLO
endowed with the right and privileges granted by law to such organizations. It
cannot be overemphasized that the registration or recognition of a labor union
after it has submitted the corresponding papers is NOT ministerial on the part
of the BLR. After an LO has filed the necessary registration documents, it
becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under LC 234
have been sedulously complied with.
If the unions application is infected by falsification and like serious
irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and its
attachments, a union should be denied recognition as an LLO.
c.
66
IRs merely specified that when the application was filed with the RO, the
application would be acted upon by the BLR.
e.
f.
67
Phoenix Iron and Steel Corp. v. Sec. of Labor (1995) disputed here is
the applicability of Progressive Dev Corp v. Sec. of Labor
Summary: The Union filed a petition for certification election with the Med-Arb.
The Company sought clarification of the legal personality of the Union. The
Med-Arb dismissed the petition finding that the Union had not complied with
the requisites of the law. The Med-Arb found that no books of account was
filed; CBL and list of members were not attested to by the union president; the
CBL was not verified under oath. On appeal, the DOLE called for the immediate
conduct of the certification election, holding that technicalities should not
stand in the way of the election. SC granted the petition of the company and
set aside the DOLEs decision.
Doctrine: The ruling in Progressive applies to the case at bar.
A local or chapter becomes an LLO only upon submission of the following to the
BLR:
(1) A charter certificate, within 30 days from its issuance by the federation or
national union; and
(2) CBL, a statement on the set of officers, books of accounts all of which are
certified under oath by the secretary or treasurer, as the case may be, of
such local or chapter, and attested to by its president
Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, the local or chapter
does NOT become an LLO.
C. Question of Legitimacy
1.
Cases:
a. SS Ventures v. SS Ventures, etc. (2008)
Summary: SS Ventures Labor Union filed with the DOLE-Region III a petition for
certification election. SS Ventures then filed a petition to cancel the unions
certificate of registration invoking the grounds in LC 239(a) on alleged
instances of fraud and misrepresentation committed by the Union in securing
its registration. The DOLE cancelled the registration of the Union which was
reversed by the BLR and this reversal was affirmed by the CA. SC denied the
Companys petition.
Doctrine: While a certificate of registration confers a union with legitimacy with
the concomitant right to participate in or ask for certification election in a
bargaining unit, the registration may be cancelled or the union may be
decertified as the bargaining unit, in which case the union is divested of the
status of an LLO.
Among the grounds for cancellation is the commission of any acts enumerated
in LC 239(a). To decertify a union, it is not enough to show that the union
includes ineligible employees in its membership. It must also be shown that
there was misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud in connection with the
application for registration and the supporting documents.
b.
the original, as such there is no conclusive proof that the Union has acquired
legitimate status. The Med-Arb and the Sec. of Labor held that the copy is
sufficient and granted due course to the petition. SC affirmed.
Doctrine: The submission of a Xerox copy of the Unions certificate of
registration to prove its legitimacy is sufficient. A certification proceeding is not
a litigation in the sense that the term is ordinarily understood, but an
investigation of a fact-finding and non-adversarial character. It is not covered
by the technical rules of evidence. Under LC 221, proceedings before the NLRC
are not covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure. The court
has already construed LC 221 in favor of allowing the NLRC to decide case on
the basis of position papers and other documents submitted without resorting
to technical rules of evidence. The technical rules of evidence do not apply if
the decision to grant the petition proceeds from an examination of its
sufficiency as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in the
position papers and other documents.
c.
d.
69
f.
Here, the rulings in Toyota and Dunlop are abandoned. The SC held that after a
certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation. The grounds for cancellation of union registration are
provided for in LC 239.
The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is NOT among the grounds
for cancellation, UNLESS such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false
statement, or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and
(c) of LC 239.
D. Rights of LLOs
1.
NOTES:
Not every LLO possesses the rights mentioned in LC 242:
Right to represent employees in collective bargaining is true only for the union
of the majority members of the CBU; this does not attach to a minority union
even if it is an LLO
Right to be certified as EBR is true only for the union that won in the
certification election or consent election; losing union has no representational
status although it is an LLO
71
2.
3.
illegal acts. Hence, this appeal by the Hotel. SC agreed that the strike was
illegal but remanded the case to the LA in order to determine the respective
liabilities of the strikers.
Doctrine: Under LC 255, only the LO designated or selected by the majority of
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining. The Union is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the
majority of the employees of the Company, hence, it could not demand from
the latter the right to bargain collectively on their behalf.
Not every LLO possesses the rights in LC 242. LC 242(a) must be read in
relation to LC 255.
On the contention that the Union was bargaining only for its members, the
same would only only fragment the employees of petitioner, held that what
[respondent] will be achieving is to divide the employees, more particularly,
the rank-and-file employees . . . the other workers who are not members are at
a serious disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed, employees who
are non-union members will be economically impaired and will not be able to
negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective safeguard against the
evil schemes of employers in terms and conditions of work.
c.
d.
73
74
E. Effect of Non-Registration
1.
2.
75
a.
b.
BLR shall act on all applications for registration within 30 days from filing
All requisite documents and parents:
(1) Shall be certified under oath by the secretary or the treasurer of the
organization, as the case may be AND
(2) Attested to by its president
NOTES:
Documents required to accompany an application for union registration must be
true and correct
LC 239 lists the grounds for cancellation of union registration
Misrepresentation, false statements, or fraud, are grounds for cancellation or
denial of registration
2.
NOTES:
Because an independent union or local chapter operates at the enterprise level:
It applies for registration at the DOLE RO where the union principally operates
If its application is denied by the RD, the denial may be appealed to the BLR
Dir.
If still denied, the denial is appealable directly to the CA
-
3.
Cases:
a. San Miguel Corp. v. San Miguel, etc. (2005)
Summary: Respondent is a registered chapter of PDMP which filed 3 separate
petitions for certification election to represent the 3 division of SMC. This was
dismissed for fragmenting a single bargaining unit. Petitioner, as the
incumbent EBA of SMC, filed with DOLE-NCR a petition seeking the cancellation
of respondents registration and its dropping from the rolls of LLOs on the
ground, among others, that PDMP is not a LLO but a trade union center (TUC)
and cannot create a local or chapter. DOLE-NCR revoked the certification but
on the basis of non-compliance with the 20% membership requirement. This
was reversed by the BLR and the CA. The petitioner raises the issue of the
respondents personality as LLO before the SC. SC granted the petition. It held
that PDMP cannot directly create a local or chapter. Thus, respondent must
comply with the more stringent rules for creation and registration of an
independent union, including the 20% membership requirement.
Doctrine: As to petitioner's claims that respondent obtained its Certificate of
Registration through fraud and misrepresentation, this Court finds that the
imputations are not impressed with merit. In the instant case, proof to declare
that respondent committed fraud and misrepresentation remains wanting.
Registration based on false and fraudulent statements and documents confer
no legitimacy upon a labor organization irregularly recognized, which, at best,
holds on to a mere scrap of paper. Under such circumstances, the labor
organization, not being a legitimate labor organization, acquires no rights.
However, that a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a labor organization
based on fraud and misrepresentation in securing its certificate of registration
is a serious allegation which deserves careful scrutiny. Allegations thereof
76
c.
d.
petition and ordered the conduct of the certification election. This was affirmed
on appeal by the DOLE USec. Thus, the Company filed certiorari. The SC
framed the issue in this wise: Whether or not, after the necessary papers and
documents have been filed by the LO, recognition by the BLR merely becomes
a ministerial function. SC said NO. The basis of the Companys opposition was
LC 239(a) and (c). These constitute a grave challenge to the right of the Union
to ask for certification election. The Med-Arb should have looked into the
merits of the opposition.
Doctrine: A more than cursory reading of LC 234 clearly indicates that the
requirements embodied therein are intended as preventive measures against
the commission of fraud. After a labor organization has filed the necessary
papers and documents for registration, it becomes mandatory for the Bureau
of Labor Relations to check if the requirements under LC 234 have been
sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by
falsification and serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of
the application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be
denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. And if a certificate of
recognition has been issued, the propriety of the labor organization's
registration could be assailed directly through cancellation of registration
proceedings in accordance with LC 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or
indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for
certification election.
Furthermore, LC 235 itself grants the Bureau of Labor Relations a period of
thirty (30) days within which to review all applications for registration. The
thirty-day period ensures that any action taken by the Bureau of Labor
Relations is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code, which, it
bears emphasis, specifically requires that the basis for the issuance of a
certificate of registration should be compliance with the requirements for
recognition under LC 234.
78
CANCELLATION OF UNION
CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION
I.
Provisions
A.
Cases:
A. Mariwasa v. Sec. of Labor (2009)
Summary: Mariwasa Siam Ceramics Inc. filed a Petition for Cancellation of Union
Registration against the Union for alleged violation of LC 234 for not complying with
the 20% requirement due to the disaffiliation of 102 members who executed affidavits
recanting their union membership. The Company also alleged massive fraud on the
part of the Union in violation of LC 239. DOLE RD granted the petition and cancelled
the Unions certification. This was reversed by the BLR on appeal which was affirmed
by the CA. SC dismissed the Companys petition. It held that the affidavits were
79
standardized and pro forma and thus no probative value. It also held that the Unions
failure to be mathematically precise with its membership is of no moment because it
met the 20% requirement. The SC also held that the bare fact that two signatures
appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the organizational meeting
would not provide a valid reason to cancel respondents certificate of registration.
Doctrine: Even assuming the veracity of the affidavits of recantation, the legitimacy of
respondent as a labor organization must be affirmed. While it is true that the
withdrawal of support may be considered as a resignation from the union, the fact
remains that at the time of the unions application for registration, the affiants were
members of respondent and they comprised more than the required 20% membership
for purposes of registration as a labor union. LC 234 of the Labor Code merely requires
a 20% minimum membership during the application for union registration. It does not
mandate that a union must maintain the 20% minimum membership requirement all
throughout its existence.
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that
there was misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption
or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto; the minutes of
ratification; or, in connection with the election of officers, the minutes of the election of
officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit these documents together with the list of
the newly elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to the BLR.
B. Sta. Lucia East v. Secretary of Labor (2009)
Summary: Following the denial of the Med-Arb of a previous petition for certification
due to the inappropriateness of the bargaining unit, the CLUP-SLECC re-registered to
cover only RAFE on SLECC as SLECCWA and filed a petition for certification. This was
opposed by the Company in an MTD on the ground that it voluntarily recognized
SMSLEC as the EBA. Ultimately, a CBA was entered into between the Company and
SMSLEC. The Med-Arb dismissed SLECCWAs petition on the ground of contract bar
rule. Labor Sec. and CA reversed and held that the subsequent negotiations and
registration of a CBA could not bar SLECCWAs petition. SC found no error and held that
the voluntary recognition of SMSLEC was valid.
Doctrine: The inclusion in the union of disqualified employees is not among the
grounds for cancellation of registration, unless such inclusion is due to
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in
Sections (a) to (c) of LC 239. Thus, the CLUP-SLECC having been validly issued a
certificate of registration, should be considered as having acquired juridical personality
which may not be attacked collaterally. The proper procedure for SLECC is to file a
petition for cancellation of certificate of registration.
NOTE: The employer may voluntarily recognize the representation status of a union in
UNORGANIZED establishments.
NOTE: In petitions for certification election, the employer is a mere bystander and
cannot oppose the petition or appeal the Med-Arbs decision. The exception to this rule
is when the employer is requested to bargain collectively.
80