Instead of Midterms, hand in a paper which would be the grade for the midterm
-September 1 deadline of paper (there's still classes on September 1)
-come up with a good paper
TOPICS:
• Almario vs. PAL: on liability of ER blah blah
• Short paper on the current dispute taking place in PAL
§ Retirement age of PAL: PAL desires to further lower the retirement age to 40 (from 55-50-45)
§ Employer's claim: the pilots that included Captains and first officers are in breach of their contractual obligations without giving the required 180 day notice before submitting their letters of resignation vs. Employer compelling them to return to their jobs vs. Ees: masaya ka!
DRILON: PAL cannot compel the Pilots to comeback or else violates involuntary servitude
(consti leading case involved a maid in Kaungka v. Salazar (unreported case))
• Claim of some labor fe
• deration officials (boy herrera): if the law, QJA...are inclined upon the presentation of required proof, to permit or allow an employer to resort to measures such as retrenchment, downsizing, restructuring...to help employer survive its plight, why can't it understand employees? Can further refine language used. Point is this: if the law allows or permits corporations to resort to harsh and extreme measures to survive, why can't the law understand the sufferings of the employees to survive?
• Not limited to these issues but sir wants us to focus on these suggested topics basta more or less related to the PAL dispute
-come up with a short paper, 10-15 pages, double spaced with necessary footnotes
SMC vs. NLRC (403 SCRA 428) (2003)
-IBM (Union) filed a notice of strike. A non-strikeable issue was included so NCMB converted it to a preventive mediation case. Still, union held strike.
H: 1. PAL v. DRILON: Declaration of preventive mediation has the effect of dropping the notice of strike from the docket
2. SMC v. NLRC (1999): Failure to exhaust all steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration proceedings in CBA. Notice of strike should be dismissed as illegal.
-the strike was illegal for lack of notice of strike
SIR: significance of these cases cannot be overestimated:
• Took JN of the fact that the NCMB has no coercive power to issue an injunction
-when the court takes JN of a fact, it means the parties need not prove the said allegation
-so can invoke it against NCMB when it exercises coercive powers, as opposed to the NLRC which has the power to stop immediately an illegal strike and any threatened illegal strike (if you're for the employer)
-strike cases: ER would go to the NLRC, say the Union has threatened an illegal strike, conducting an illegal strike - so would ask for a TRO (good for 20 days)
...so the strike would be prevented or must be stopped. If continued, can sue the union
-while TRO existing, ER must present evidence for a permanent writ of injunction to justify the relief sought
...during the actual trial, UNION must be present. Union must be given a chance to present their evidence/side as due process requirement
-here, SMC opposed Union's motion to dismiss because they had reasonable grounds to believe that a strike may be held. This was correct sabi ni sir.
CBA PROPER
RIVERA v ESPIRITU
-PAL employees went on a 3-week strike when PAL downsized its labor force (or vice versa? )
-PAL now wanted to close down...so union was forced to concede to the suspension of the CBA negotiations for 10 years, provisions of which maintained PALEA as the union and respecting the closed-shop agreement as contained in the existing CBA
-the petitioners were the breakaway group from PALEA
*Abdication of constitutional right to bargain: Court held that it was not, since the union voluntarily entered it, it was meant for the stabilization of the industrial relations within the company and for the parties to have specific time tables
* Argument that while the 10 year period running, the employees would not be able to exercise their right to change the EBR after expiration of 5 years. Court held that the employees approved it. Included in the right to collective bargaining is the right to suspend it.
-as to argument that PALEA in effect became a company union: no, it was meant to stabilize relations in the company, it was for unionism in fact by ensuring the existence of PALEA
SIR: sa SC decision, they continually said that it was the union who asked for it so they should not complain about it. Do you agree?
CHA: NO. The employees were pinned to agree to the suspension because the company was about to close. If they do not agree, they would lose their jobs.
-the SC in effect says that the government could step in to prevent the closure of the company.
Recall Manila fashions: since the company was closing, the Union agreed to condone the minimum wage orders. But here the court held that the waiver of the wage order is illegal. Why did the court not make a similar declaration:
CHA: because that involved a negotiation of an issue which is not really subject to CBA negotiations, as it should be provided by law
FASAP Case: they were illegally dismissed because PAL failed to present evidence that the retrenchment was necessary. What the corporation should have presented was the balance sheet, audited financial report.
-There was bad faith on the part of PAL: Right after they dismissed the employees, they hired another set of new employees for probation.
...but in the end, justified daw PAL in terminating the employees. Now the Cabin crew are seeking reconsideration of the ruling
INTERPHIL LAB UNION v. INTERPHIL LAB
F: ER refused to renegotiate with the union because allegedly it was "premature" (2 years first then around 4 months early?) but the union insisted in renegotiating the CBA. When the ER refused to renegotiate, they undertook a boycott of work schedule, arguing that the 2-shift schedule was not in the CBA (note however that the employees have been complying with the 2-shift schedule and they were paid overtime pay)
H: the union cannot invoke that since the2-shift work schedule is not in the CBA so they are not compelled to follow it, it being that they have been observing it as company practice
SIR: In addition, there is a crucial fact that the CBA recognizes the discretion of the employer to change the working hours
-why slowdown is not lawful: you are still being paid even if you are there in the premises of the employer but not doing job for the employer
SMC EMPLOYEES UNION V. CONFESSOR
F:
Under the labor code, a CBA has a lifetime of only 5 years?
Substitutionary doctrine: after the lifetime of the EBR, a new union can argue that the former EBR does not represent the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. PCE...basta new union emerges triumphant. But then the CBA is still not expiring. What will happen to the old CBA? The CBA continues, has to be respected. The new union will assume the role of the administrator of the old CBA. What the new EBR could do is to ask for the shortening of the period of the CBA.
-see the history of the HERRERA-VELOSO law
No comments:
Post a Comment