1.

Can free speech be used by an employer as an excuse for interfering with its employees’
exercise of their right to concerted action?
In the case of Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd, it
was explained that the free speech protection under the Constitution is inapplicable where the
expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains a promise of benefit, or threats, or
reprisal. In the case, a letter containing promises of benefits to the employees in order to entice
them to return to work, it is not protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution
(NLRB v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc., 213 F2d 70). Since it also contained threats to obtain
replacements for the striking employees in the event they did not report for work.

2. Does an employer’s interrogation of its employees as to their union affiliation constitute an

unfair labor practice?
In the case of Phil. Steam Navigation Co. v. Phil. Marine Officer’s Guild, it was explained that an
employer is not denied the privilege of interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation,
provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and assurance is given by the employer that no
reprisals would be taken against the unionists. Any employer who engages in interrogation does
so with notice that he risks a finding of unfair labor practice if the circumstances are such that his
interrogation restrains or interferes with employees’ right to self-organization.

3. Does contracting out per se constitute an unfair labor practice?

As a general rule, contracting out is not an unfair labor practice. However, under Article 259 (c)
of the Labor Code, contracting out would constitute as unfair labor practice if such contracting
out is done to contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such
will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self organization.
4. Differentiate the following: (a) union shop; (b) maintenance of membership; and (c) closed
shop.
a. union shop - all new regular employees who are not part of any union are required to join the
union within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment.

b. maintenance of membership –
According to GMC v. Casio, it is a condition for continued employment within the company,
wherein the present and future union members must maintain their membership until they are
promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. No employee is
compelled to join the union, but all present or future members of the union must, as a condition of
employment, remain in good standing in the union.

c. closed shop – According to BPI v. BPI Unibank, it is an agreement whereby an employer binds
himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in
good standing to keep their jobs.

5. Do you agree with the ruling in Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission that therein
petitioner’s dismissal constitutes an unfair labor practice?
No, In Mabeza v. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that 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.

Unfair labor practice is defined by B.P. 70 as that which violates the constitutional right of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor
and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other
in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.

Therefore, the ruling in Mabeza v. NLRC is not in consonance with how B.P. 70 explains what
unfair labor practices, since the case did not involve the right to self-organization of Mabeza but
rather the act the Hotel of forcing employees to sign documents which shows that they are
following the labor standards as prescribed by law.