"Knowledge is Power": August 11, 2010 Class Lecture for Labor Arbitration

"knowledge is power" - francis bacon
Felix frankfurter- justice of US Federal SC
-Frankfurter- smoked sausage
-civil liberties union
-activist, contributed to the formation of labor standards in US (8-hour labor law, minimum wage law)
-when Cardozo died, he replaced the former
-hired first Afro-American law clerks

ANTONIO HALAGUENA CASE
-parang Almario case, pero binayaran nya ung PAL after sabi ng PAL may utang pa sha for the training. 2 years later, humirit pa ung PAL na milyon daw ung utang nya sa PAL.
RTC: PAL estopped from claiming additional amounts
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: mukhang upheld din

For the paper:
• Can cite newspaper sources aside from books
• Purely for Labor Arbitration class

Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez
-Company provided for sick leave benefits for its employees, convertible to cash. Both regular employees and workpool employees enjoy said benefits. However, the employer withdrew this benefit from the workpool employees.
H: the CBA was clear: the CBA considers two kinds of workers who enjoy the sick leave benefits:
* REGULAR EMPLOYEES enjoy the 15-day fixed sick leave
* INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES enjoy variable number of sick leave but should not exceed 15 days
-It is not disputed that both classes of workers are entitled to sick leave with pay benefits provided they comply with the conditions set forth under Section 1 in relation to the last paragraph of Section 3, to wit:
(1) the employee-applicant must be regular or must have rendered at least one year of service with the company; and
(2) the application must be accompanied by a certification from a company-designated physician.
-since this ripened into company practice, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer - or else violation of LC
-when an existing employer practice becomes an enforceable right: a considerable amount of time has lapsed and said act has been practiced or exercised or done by the employer
-did the court set a hard and fast rule for considering an act a company practice: no, no set number of years
How many years would it take for a practice to ripen into a company practice? SC has not laid down any hard and fast rule
Sevilla Trading: the requirement for the ER to be able to get back or make bawi the benefits given is that to argue that it was given due to mistake - but should do it as early as possible, or else, it would be the fault of the employer
-what is the rule now? The burden is upon the employer to prove that he did not know about the mistake, the withdrawal was immediately done upon discovery of the error
-pwede ba, especially in CBA negotiations, change the existing policy being followed in replacement of another benefit? Yes, allowed, but the substitute should correspond to the benefit withdrawn.
How to determine if it is in equal terms?
- If the parties agree, then no problem
- If none, then labor arbiter

Kimberly Clark v. Lorredo (1st case - 1993)
-CBA provides that if an employee leaves the service of the employer, the employee who is leaving

Kimberly Clark part 2 - sorry ako nagrecite so not much case
-Voluntary arbitrator's power: VA should not dispense with their own type of justice

TSPIC v. TSPIC Union
-EE and ER entered into a CBA which provided for wage increases and regularization increase, but with a crediting clause which provided that the said increases are deemed to be compliance with subsequent wage orders. However, even with the said provision, the ER complied with subsequent wage orders, but upon finding that they made a mistake, announced that they would deduct from the salaries of the affected employees.
Court held that in interpreting the CBA, the specific provisions are followed vs. General provisions
Would not the deductions be tantamount to withdrawal of benefits? No. Not a company -practice as the court held. It was made under a mistake.

Bobcock v. Union
-CBA provided a relocation allowance which is given to employees relocated. 2 branches, Bauan and Makati. Those who live in Bauan, working previously in Makati, but relocated in Bauan now claim the relocation allowance
-company refuses to pay, so complaint for relocation allowance filed
H: CBA clear. Upon relocation, the employee is entitled to relocation allowance

Cheniver printing press case
-the employee was to be relocated. He did not want to be transferred, so would just resign but asks for separation pay/financial assistance
-Court required the employer to pay the affected employee financial assistance
-this ruling is dangerous, especially to pharmaceutical and distribution companies who always send its employees in far flung places

August 4, 2010 Labor Arbitration Lecture Notes

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

July 28 Labor Arbitration Lecture Notes

Robert Frost poem

-was a poet lauriat - he was asked during state functions to compose poems, including that of JFK

---so around 30 minutes about Culture…

*"Men of culture would never be irrelevant in society"

What has this to do, at all, with our class in Labor Law?

When you become lawyers, you have to be "cultured".

Obsequitious 

DUTY TO BARGAIN

-important: almost always, dito nagsisimula ung labor dispute

-start of the process where the parties would finally end up with Voluntary Arbitration

-if you examine the entire relationship (EER) and attempt to divide that relationship into portions, you can start initially with bargaining, then conciliation, mediation, grievance procedure then finally voluntary arbitration

-start: bargaining in GF

-end: VA

SAMAHAN SA PERMEX V. SOLE

F: Certification Election was conducted, wherein 61% of the employees voted "no union" (Feb 1991). However, SMP wrote to PERMEX to be recognized as the SBR, and PERMEX complied with it. Employees contested this, even saying they were coerced or misled into signing a document which turned out to be in support of SMP as its CB Agent. CBA was entered into by SMP and PERMEX.

H: Since there is a question as to the majority status of the recognized BR, the CBA is not effective.

-Also, improper for the ER to voluntarily recognize SMP. Should have a CE to determine which Union all the employees recognize as its EBR.

-found it dubious that SMP was recognized as EBR by the ER even after 10 months after the CE wherein "No union" won

*on the 10 month period: if it was longer, would it change anything? No. the employer should not have voluntarily recognized SMP, but should have held a CE to determine the sentiments of the employees as to who they want to represent them - now, direct recognition by the ER is prohibited

ALU V. FERRER-CALLEJA

F: ALU asked to be the EBR of the employees, and ER wrote back asking that ALU show proof of majority status. 2 days after, ALU and the ER entered into CBA negotiations. 2 other labor unions questioned the status of ALU as the majority representative of the employees, petitioned for a Certification Election.

H: For there to be collective bargaining, 3 things should first be shown to exist (Kiok loy jurisdictional requirements), one of which is proof of majority representation which in this case does not exist or was not shown to exist.

-what is wrong with the ER voluntarily recognizing ALU as the sole bargaining rep? CHA: because the status of ALU as the majority representative of the employees of the company is questionable

What factual circumstances show this:

• There are at least 2 other union in the company
• The 2 unions conducted a strike

WHAT IS WRONG ACCORDING TO SIR: the ER knew that there was an issue as to the majority status of the Union. Even so, it voluntarily recognized ALU as the EBR of the employees. The circumstances should have put the ER on notice of the issue of majority status of the Union.

"there was precipitate haste…"

"unusual promptitude"

"an apparent and suspicious hurry"

Show BF on the part of ER

Precipitate: sudden, too soon….

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V. CONFESSOR

F: Surface bargaining v. blue sky-bargaining

H: NO ULP in either side

-Duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or to require the making of a concession

SMB v. NLRC (1999)

F: in an attempt to streamline its operations, SMC laid off some of its employess. The employees and SMC underwent the grievance procedure provided in the CBA. Arguing that there was a deadlock in the grievance procedure, the Union filed a notice for strike.

H: No deadlock yet because there was still a grievance procedure

CSR: corporate social responsibility

-in SMC's case, as part of its CSR even before it became a buzzword, before dismissing its employees, SMC should first find a job among its units (when all that is required from the ER when it finds that the services of an EE is redundant is TO GIVE 30-DAY notice to affected EE and DOLE).

-it's a precedent-setting case:

• SC agreed with the ER that NLRC has positive legal duty to stop an ongoing strike/prevent an incoming strike when doing so is violative of a law/CBA

-strike:

• Deadlock in CBA
• Deadlock based in ULP

-if not strikeable, ER would file a motion to dismiss the notice of strike! (as was done in this case) But before NLRC refused to do so, saying its not their duty to prevent a threatened strike or stop an ongoing strike

• However, there is no clear express law providing that power. What NLRC/NCMB does is to convert the notice to strike into a Preventive Mediation Case, considered the notice to strike as not having been filed at all (which does not have any affect at all to Unions, who would still strike since there is no clear order from NLRC/NCMB that the strike is illegal)
• University of San Agustin: SC penalized NCBM/NLRC for not stopping an illegal strike!

SAMAHAN SA TOP FORM v. NLRC (1998)

F: During the CBA negotiations, provisions mandating ACROSS THE BOARD implementation of wage orders was not included in the CBA, with the ER promising to incorporate it in the CBA. When Wage Orders were issued, the Union insisted on the Across the Board implementation of the wage, in accordance with the minutes of the CBA negotiations. ER refused to comply, saying it is not included in the CBA.

H: Only provisions included in the CBA should be interpreted and implemented - so minutes of the CBA negotiations not binding upon the ER

-No BF bargaining:

1. ER was willing to negotiate - and did negotiate!
2. CBA was entered into
3. No BF to insist on a position to the point of stalemate - not required to give concessions and to agree to a proposal

-it is one of management's negotiation strategies to tentatively agree to the demands of the union

-It is the union's duty to insist that the said "promise" be included in the CBA

...Whenever discussed: warn class not to be misled by some of the things the SC said:

• Minutes of the meeting walang kabuluhan unless/until find print in the CBA: here, the labor union failed to give evidence that the employer agreed on the implementation of the across the board wage increase. Union should have made that said agreement a part of the actual part of the CBA. SO MAKE IT A POINT THAT AN IMPORTANT AGREEMENT REACHED DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS BE INCLUDED IN THE CBA!!!

July 21 Labor Arbitration Lecture Notes

Letran v. Union of Faculty and Admin
-which ULP was accused of LETRAN:
1. Refusal to bargain
2. Termination of Union president as interference on union activities
*sir pointed out to the management prerogative to reschedule the schedule  of the employees. Why considered interference? Taking consideration all factual circumstances (TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST), such as that the employee dismissed is the president of the union and that the said president contested the decisions of the ER as to its refusal to bargain and failure to resolve the issue in a grievance procedure, there is definitely anti-union animus on the part of the school/ER
Lesson which should be learned from LETRAN CASE:
1. Bargain expeditiously, in GF
When the company is suffering economically. It may go either way.
1. Company may retrench employees
2. Employees (in an unorgainzed establishment) may form a union, then have stronger bargaining position with regards financial assistance (separation benefits, other economic assistance to the employees affected). The Union would now go to DOLE, argue that the company is not really losing, but the ER wants to dismiss them in a form of union-busting. To add more pressure, the Union would also file a notice of strike, arguing there was union-busting.
*in the realm of labor relations, it is not merely one sided. Just as the employer may come up with reasons to justify retrenchment, so could the employees by unionizing.
Bargainable Issue in Collective Bargaining Negotiations
-wages, hours of work, all other terms and conditions of employment
Nonbargainable issues
-issues that are not subject to condonation and negotiation, such as the implementation of Wage Orders
Manila Fashions v. NLRC
-wage orders cannot be condoned, not subject to agreement of the parties because it is against public policy to waive it. 
-cannot waive the implementation of the wage order: the employees stand in a less powerful bargaining stance than the employer
Republic Savings Bank v. CIR
-don't you find it odd that a libelous statement was made against the bank officer BUT, in effect, the right procedure was for the officer to proceed to grievance procedure than a criminal proceeding for libel against the said employees?
• NOT ODD: valid expression of grievances of the employees against the management; valid exercise of constitutional right of freedom of expression
• YES ODD: also incumbent upon the Union to subject their issues in a grievance machinery. Procedure they employed is not correct.
-this case is authority to say that CB is a never-ending, ever continuing process, and you see this at work at the grievance procedure!!!
-the body and soul of collective bargaining is the grievance procedure
-Cf Art 260: grievance machinery on implementation and interpretation of CBA and company personnel policies
SIR: Art 260 only speaks of EOJ of voluntary arbitrators (included productivity bonus, wage distortion issues). "Grievance" usually defined as anything at all that has to do with EER. It's that broad, sweeping.
…Art. 260 came into being in 1989. This case was decided in 1967.
-concepts were already floating in the air in the 60s and partially followed or implemented. The doctrine was distilled, found its way to Article 260.
Navarro v. Damasco
-rape case. The "rapist" argued that the matter should have undergone a grievance procedure. Court held that the grievance procedure should cover interpretation and implementation of the CBA procedure and  company personnel policy.  The issue is not a grievable matter, not a work-related incident. Court also held that it is not necessary to undergo grievance procedure, to the prejudice of the poor employee who has to wait for the grievance committee first before undergoing criminal proceeding
Can you now reconcile the holding of the SC in Navarro and Republic Savings Bank?
Republic Savings bank involved or touched upon EER, while the Navarro case did not (private matter).
*but in Navarro case, the employee was dismissed based on the Code of Conduct (which is a company personnel policy). Further, the CBA mentions that any complaint between employees may be subjected to the grievance procedure
DUTY TO BARGAIN

June 23 Labor Arbitration

In labor relations, we frequently encounter the initials "LMC"

3 meanings:

1. Labor management cooperation
2. Labor management committee
3. Labor managemnt commission

-but it really doesn't matter. LMC, we have in mind labor and management and of necessity, we recall the provisions found in the labor code and rules and regulations implementing the labor code mandating the department of labor, specifically the NCMB, to conduct awareness campaigns

What do you think is the rationale/justification for encouraging labor and management to form LMCs w/ n the work place?

>To achieve industrial peace

How to determine employee membership in the LMC?

Section 2, IRR (Rule XXI)

• If organized establishment: nominated by the exclusive bargaining representative
• If unorganized establishment: workers at large directly elects the members of the LMCs

*don't you find it weird that an LMC exists in an organized establishment?
No, LMCs complements the union

>but usually, Unions don't want LMCs on the notion that it replaces the unions…based on the old notion/traditional notion of an adversarial relationship between management and labor

>makes it appear on some notion that the UNION is incompetent to serve the interests of its members

Issues in LMCs usually different with what the Union usually deals with:

-in the article, LMCs are allowed to deal with policies of the company as to solicit proposals from the side of labor to promote the productivity of the establishment

-in reality, all too often, disagreements arise between ER and union when the union submits a set of proposals in the course of CB negotiations. The ER would defer it to another forum, maybe in the LMC. When that happens, the union does not look to kindly on such move of the employer.

-Unions are not fully aware that they can put up LMCs

-the perception was that the NCMB grabs the business of the Union: delivers a message that one don't need a union, LMCs are enough. As a result, DOLE's campaign for LMCs became nill…bumagal. (as featured in Foz's article)

AZUCENA ARTICLE:

-written in the 1980s, at a time when the NCMB was promoting the concept of LMCs, among others

-highlighted the importance of values: he mentioned the Filipino values of cooperation vs. confrontation: Filipinos are nonadversarial, as opposed to the traditional notion of the relationship between management and employees which is adversarial

FOZ ARTICLE:

-traced the roots of worker's participation in the determination of policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law: from the concon records to congress

-emphasized the fact that, as born out of the deliberations of the Concon, what they had in mind were processes like the grievance procedure, conciliation, mediation, voluntary arbitration - all of which are integral parts of the so-called alternative modes of dispute resolution

-comments on PAL v. NLRC: the court misapplied the constitutional and labor code provisions on worker's participation.

• Overlooked or ignored Art 255 as to LMCs
• Misread Art 211(d) policy on education and enlightenment of union members as employees
• LMC's sphere of intervention, in accordance w/ Art255, does not cover areas covered by the CBA or collective bargaining areas
• The court could have just invoked management prerogatives: so not try to discuss the consti provision on participation of workers in policy and decision-making processes?

Article 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers' participation in policy and decision-making. - The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have theright at any time to present grievances to their employer.

"Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and regulations as the Secretary ofLabor and Employment may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers may formlabor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment."

-"However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have theright at any time to present grievances to their employer." Does an ER have the same right?

-no?  Because of the inherent relationship between the employer and employee where the employer stand in a higher level vis a vis the employee

-when an ER deals directly to the Ees, to the exclusion of the EBR, it is committing ULP

PAL v. NLRC

SUMMARY: PAL revised its 1966 Code of Discipline in 1985, without sufficient notice to its employees, thereby subjecting some of its employees to disciplinary measures and even dismissing some of them. PALEA filed a ULP case before NLRC. LA was for PAL, though she did not find any ULP or BF bargaining on PAL’s part. NLRC affirmed said decision. SC upheld the said decisions, saying that PAL should have involved the employees in the revision of the Code of Discipline as it is not purely management prerogative, the act involving repercussions to the employees’ security of tenure. Shared responsibility between management and labor also highlighted as already an existing state policy even before the amendment of the LC.

-if you were the personnel manager, HR director and you want to change some policy which would involve the rights and welfare (tardiness, absences…) of the employees. What steps should you undertake?

• If these would affect the security of tenure of the employees, due process should be observed
• Even before you start touching any of the provisions, consult with the union or the employees, make known to them what you desire to achieve, furnish them copy of the specific changes. Give them then the opportunity to comment thereon. Here them out. If you were able to resolve it, reach an agreement, furnish union leadership a copy of the final draft. It is always safe to post it on the bulletin board for all to see. Give the employees a certain period of time to comment, to study it. After a lapse of a reasonable period of time, advise them of the effectivity date of the changes.
• If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the proposed changes, the union will challenge the management to go through grievance, then voluntary arbitration

When you become lawyers and you handle a case where the employee or union questions certain rights that, to the thinking of the employer, falls within the bundle of rights called management prerogative, always invoke the case of SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES FORCE UNION V. OPLE, 170 SCRA 25 (1989):

SUMMARY: PTGWO and SMC entered into a CBA in April 1978 (effective May 1, 1978-January 31, 1981) which provided that employees would receive an additional commission based on their respective sales. However, in 1979, SMC adopted the “Complementary Distribution System” (CDS) wherein beer products were sold directly to wholesalers, thereby removing any chance for the employees to gain commission. PTGWO filed a case for ULP. Minister of Labor absolved SMC. SC upheld the CDS, ruling that it was a valid exercise of management prerogative. Besides, SMC offered to compensate those who would be affected by paying them “back adjustment commission”.

-So long as a company's management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold them - HIGHLIGHTED BY SIR

-what does CDS mean: where its beer products were offered for sale directly to wholesalers through SMC offices.

GTE DIRECTORIES CORP V. SANCHEZ, 197 SCRA 452 (1991)

SUMMARY: GTE through the years adopted several Sales evaluation policies. Pursuant to the latest sales policy, GTE issued 6 memoranda to its employees which required the Premise Sales Reps (PSRs) to submit individual reports reflecting target revenues as of deadlines set. None of these memoranda were followed by the employees, arguing that they were not consulted. As a result, 14 employees (some of them Union officers) were dismissed. Union also filed notice of strike before the 4th memo was issued. Court held that GTE’s sales policy was pursuant to the valid exercise of management prerogatives and that its implementation is not suspended merely because of pending negotiations initiated by the Union.

HOW DOES THE LABOR CODE DEFINE A LABOR DISPUTE - MEMORIZE BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY A BAR QUESTION

LABOR DISPUTE INCLUDES

ANY CONTROVERSY OR MATTER CONCERNING

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OR

THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS

IN NEGOTIATING,

FIXING,

MAINTAINING,

CHANGING OR ARRANGING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

SMC Employees Union vs. Bersamira, 186 SCRA 496 (1990)

SUMMARY: RTC issued Writ of Preliminary Injunction, on the assumption that it had jurisdiction over the dispute between SMC and the Union, there being no EER. Court held that even if there is no EER, there can still be a labor dispute.

(note: Sir must be interested in this case, he wrote "Lipercon" on the board eh - Later on, we found out that sir handled this case for SMC!)

-break up essential ingredients of a labor arbitration

1. Terms and conditions of employement
2. THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS

IN NEGOTIATING,

FIXING,

MAINTAINING,

CHANGING OR ARRANGING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,

3. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

-SC found for the union in this case. How did the supreme court point out the applicability of Art 212 (l)

-history:

*prior to the promulgation of this San Miguel case, in cases involving regularization (when the employees seek to be regular employees of the company), all the ER had to do was to prove that there was no EER, especially exercise of control over the employees:

1. Power to hire
2. Power to fire
3. Power to control and supervision
4. Power to pay wages

-AL-Lagathan v. PIGAN (1956? Case decided by ROBERTO CONCEPCION): SC enumerated the attributes of EER (4-pronged test)

-VIANA v. AL-lagathan:

-right after the war, there were many vessels of the navy.  There was a small fishing boat fishing in Manila Bay between Manila and province of Bataan. US ship rammed through the fishing boat, killing the persons on the small fishing boat. The issue was who would be liable: the owner of the fishing boat or wala? Claim was under Workmen's Compensation Act

• Owner of the fishing boat argued that there was no EER

-SC held that the workmen's compensation bureaucrats did not do their homework. Based on the essential elements of the EER, there was no EER?

-BUT IN THIS CASE, even if SMC was able to convince the regular court that there was no EER, SC still held that there was a labor dispute even if there was no EER between the parties, following Art212

Why: the issues raised by the union and the employees were:

• Representation and association
• Terms and conditions of employment

GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE V. NLRC, 245 SCRA 627 (1995)

SUMMARY: Workers of INPORT staged a strike, filing individual notice of strike w/ MOLE (which EEs alleged to have been done through fraud on part of the union officers), expressing grievances regarding wages, 13th month pay, and hazard pay. INPORT complained that the strike was illegal. NLRC issued TRO, return-to-work order (majority of workers returned to work). LA declared strike as illegal (failed to comply w/ Art 264-265,LC). NLRC affirmed w/ modification, characterizing the strike as a “protest action”. Court held that there was a strike – stemming from a labor dispute – but it was illegal for not complying w/ the cooling-off period, 7-day strike ban after the strike vote report. Main issue of the petition for review is actually the separation pay and backwages which Court recalled the payment of backwages, reduced separation pay.

-A strike, considered as the most effective weapon of labor, is defined as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees.

-Employees stopped working and held the mass action on April 30, 1985 to press for their wages and other benefits. What transpired then was clearly a strike, for the cessation of work by concerted action resulted from a labor dispute.

2 types of labor dispute

1. Rights dispute

-includes a violation of a right based on Law or the CBA or an existing employer practice or employment contract

2. Interest dispute

-involves an economic or bargaining dispute

What if you were suspended by the ER w/o any cause, what dispute arises?

-rights dispute because right to due process violated, right to security of tenure

UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION OF GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES V. NORIEL, 67 SCRA 267 (1975)

SUMMARY: Union wants to nullify the certification election held due to the allegation that its name was misspelled in the ballot, thus the other union won by landslide. Court held that one needs competent and credible proof – not general allegation of duress – to invalidate a certification election. Highlighted on the importance of Certification election. Importance of CB merely introduction to Certification election.

-statement of Archibald Cox: The institution of collective bargaining is, to recall Cox, a prime manifestation of industrial democracy at work. The two parties to the relationship, labor and management, make their own rules by coming to terms. That is to govern themselves in matters that really count. As labor, however, is composed of a number of individuals, it is indispensable that they be represented by a labor organization of their choice. Thus may be discerned how crucial is a certification election.

-a droplet of support vs. a raging torrent of support

Continue with lesson...

labor arb cases for June 23

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33398925/Labor-Arbitration-June-23-Meeting