Case Doctrines (Art 211-216) Exercise of mgt prerogative is limited by law, CBA, and the general principles of fair

play and justice. Moreover, it must be duly established that the prerogative being invoked is a managerial one. Theres a difference between mgt prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of EEs. In the latter, the mgt should see to it that the EEs are at least properly informed of its decisions and actions. Nonetheless, participation does not mean that the EEs will control the decision-making. It means that they must be consulted. In the end, management will still prevail. (PAL v NLRC) The existence of a labor dispute is not negated by the fact that the plaintiff and defendants do not stand in the proximate relations of ER-EE. (SMCEU v Bersamira, where the dispute was between contracual employees and an employer) Issue of whether or not the federation had reasonable grounds to expel the petitioner union officers is w/in the jurisdiction of the BLR, it being an intra-union conflict. (Malayang Samahan v Ramos, wherein the federation and the union had a dispute) For a labor organization to enjoy all the rights and obligations of legitimate labor organizations, it must be registered. (SMFI v Laguesma) Types of employees, already mentioned above (SMC v Laguesma) If majority of all the EEs refuse to adhere to a work schedule, this constitutes strike in installment which is illegal (Interphil EU-FFW vs. Interphil wherein the employees resorted to overtime boycott and slowdown to coerce the ER to accede to their demands)

Runaway shop is an industrial plant moved by its owner from one location to another to escape union activities. In

other words, the relocation is motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. (Complex v NLRC, wherein Complex closed down all its operations because of legitimate business reasons and moved to another already existing plant) A person can join the union on his first day of employment. (UST Faculty v UST) Article 212 (e) does not make a corporate officer personally liable for the debts of the corporation. The governing law is Section 31 of the Corporation Code which makes corporate officers liable when they are guilt of willingly assenting to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or if guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation. 212 (e) by itself does not make a corporate officer liable. In other words, the legal basis for holding a corporate officer liable would be section 31 of the corporation code (Carag)

Case Doctrines (Articles 217-225) ULP and the civil aspects of all cases involving ULP, including damages, shall be under the jurisdiction of LA. (Nube v Lazaro) The law is deemed in a CBA. Hence, Art 217 stating that termination disputes, including ULP, will be under the jurisdiction of the LA. Without an unequivocal and categorical statement for voluntary arbitration under 262, the LA will have jurisdiction. (SMC v NLRC) Intra-corporate disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, i.e. termination of corporation officers. (Nakpil v. Nakpil, wherein a comptroller who did actions needing the approval of the Board of Directors was considered an officer) Money claims of workers over which the LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction are comprehensive enough to include claims for moral damages of a dismissed EE against his ER. On the issue of the act or legality of the termination (illegal ba?), the LA will apply the Labor Code.

But, the SC held that the issue as to whether or not an EE suffered moral or other damages (in the manner by which the act of the dimissal was performed ) and the amount that should properly be awarded is governed by the Civil Code, and not by the Labor Code. (Suario v BPI) The law of resolution should be the Labor Code to be under the jd of the LA. The question is, does the Labor Code resolve or provide the principal relief asked for? Yes, then LA. No, then civil courts. (SMC v NLRC) Where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor statutes or CBA but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts. (Halaguena v PAL, wherein the issue was the constitutionality of the CBA, the other labor disputes were merely ancilliary to the main issue) The jurisdiction of LA and the Voluntary arbitrator over cases enumerated in the Labor Code, Articles 217, 261 and 262, can possible include money claims in one form or another. (Ludo v Saomide, more in this case in Articles 261262) A LA has no jd to hear and decide a partys money claim-underpayment of retirement benefits where the controversy between the parties involves an issue arising from the interpretation or implementation of a provision of the CBA. The voluntary arbitrators however, can exercise jurisdiction over any and all disputes between an ER and a union and/or individual worker upon agreement by the parties, as provided in 262. This does not encroach on the original jurisdicition of the LA because of the phrase in Article 217 otherwise provided by law which clearly refers to the provisions on voluntary arbitrators. (San Jose v NLRC) Remedy for an strike-in-installments is either: file a petition in the LA to declare strike illegal, or file for an injunction with the NLRC (not the CA). (IBM v NLRC)

Doctrines Articles 226-233 Power of the NLRC to issue writs of injunction is found in Art. 218, LC. However, according to par (1) of Art. 212, labor dispute includes any controversy or matters concerning terms or conditions of employmentNestles demand for payment of the car loans is not a labor dispute. It involves a debtor-creditor relationship hence the NLRC did not have the authority to issue a TRO. (Nestle v NLRC) In a case wherein a third party has a claim on property which is also the subject of a labor dispute, the civil action for recovery of ownership does not constitute interference with the powers or processes of the LA/NLRC. The third party has the following alternative remedies: File a complaint with the sheriff of the LA, or If the third-party claim is denied, appeal the denial to the NLRC. Even if the third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper action with a competent court to recover ownership of the property illegally seized by the sheriff. It is not precluded by the initial denial. (Yupangco v CA) Posting of a bond is necessary for perfection of appeal pursuant to Art. 223, LC. No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in reasonable amount in relation to the monetary amount. Mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. (Heritage Hotel v NLRC) When a corporation is placed under receivership all claims and actions (including labor claims) against it shall be ipso jure suspended. Such rule embraces all phases of suits including execution. (Garcia v PAL)

While under par (6) of Art. 223 the decision of the NLRC become final and executor after the lapse of 10 days, the adverse party is not precluded from challenging it by certiorari. If during the pendency of the review no order is issued enjoining the execution of the decision of the LA or NLRC which is favourable to the EE, the LA or NLRC must exercise extreme prudence and judicial courtesy. In other words, the decision of either the LA or the NLRC may be executed pending appeal but, judicial courtesy must be kept in mind. Reinstatement pending appeal would not be advisable if there is a strong probability that the issued before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. (Panuncillo v CAP) DOLE only has jurisdiction over such cases wherein the BLR has exercised its original jurisdiction. (like denial or cancellation of registration of national unions and federations) However, in cases where the BLR exercised its appellate jurisdiction in cases which came from the regional director (like denial or cancellation of registration of independent unions), its decision shall be final and executory. Remedy would be certiorari . (Abbot v Abbot) When the compromise agreement shows that it was unreasonably low (and also not with the help of the DOLE), then it is not valid. (Labor v NLRC) The BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-union disputes (Diokno v Cacdac, which involved the election of union officers) when it comes to individual benefits accruing to union members from a favorable final judgment of any court, the members themselves become the real parties in interest and it is for them, rather than for the union, to accept or reject individually the fruits of litigation. Hence, when a labor dispute is settled via a compromise agreement, only those who signed or availed of the benefits are bound by it. Those who didnt are not. The employer cannot insist that the compromise agreement binds all the employees, including those who did not sign or avail of it. (Jag & Haggar v NLRC) The certification of the CBA by the BLR is not required to put a stamp of validity to such contract. Once it is duly entered into and signed by the parties (employer and employee), a CBA becomes effective as between the parties regardless of whether or not the same has been certified by the BLR. (Liberty Union)

Doctrines Articles 234240 A LA can be held in abuse of discretion for denial of due process if he never summons, allows to present evidence or submit a position paper, nor gives notice to the employer that the case was submitted for decision. (Carag) An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Except if theres strained relations. But the strained relationship doctrine will only apply if the EE occupies a position of trust and confidence. Furthermore, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting ones right which is what the petitioner did here. Hence, absent a showing that the employee occupies a position of trust and confidence, the employee must be reinstated. (Cabigting v San Miguel Foods, wherein the latter illegally dismissed Cabigting and the LA denied reinstatement) In appeals to the NLRC from the LA, cash or surety bond is only required when the monetary award is a fixed or determined amount, excluding damages and attys fees.

Hence, when the LA does not include any fixed or determined monetary award in its decision, the appeal bond is unnecessary. (Mendoza v San Miguel, wherein the LAs decision only awarded moral damages, which in any case, is not included in computing for the amount of the appeal bond.) For indirect contempt, there must be a verified petition. It cannot merely be filed in a manifestation. (Regalado v Go) If ER acted in good faith in dismissing the employee, he may be absolved from paying backwages. (Moreno v San Sebastian) In other words, reinstatement does not automatically mean that the employer must pay backwages. Award of backwages is improper if there is no allegation of illegal dismissal. The illegal dismissal must be the cause of action to avail of an award of backwages. It can not be alleged in a mere position paper. (Mobilia v Demecillo) A trade union center has no legal authority to issue the charter certificate in favor of a union because only a federal or national union can do so. Therefore, the lenient requirement applicable for the registration of local chapters cannot apply to the said union, and it should have therefore comply with the 20% requirement for independent unions. (SMCEU-PTWGO v SMPPEU-PDMP. Sige lang, gawin niyo pa ganyan pangalan ng mga union niyo!) The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registraion is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. Hence, discrepancies alone in the documents cannot be taken as an indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained therein. As long as the documents and the signatures are shown to be genuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the union is deemed to have complied with the registration requirements. (Heritage Hotel v PIGLAS, wherein the Court said that the discrepancies in the number of people who were in the attendance sheet and those who eventually ratified were explained to its satisfaction)

Doctrines Articles 241-246 Existence of ER-EE relationship is essential to the determination of w/n a person may exercise the right to selforganization. In other words, right to self-organization may only be exercised when there is an existence of ER-EE relationship. (La Suerte) An EE may join the union on the 1 st day of his employment whether the same is for a definite period or not. (Faculty Union) The EEs can change its bargaining agent during the effectivity of the CBA but the CBA will continue to bind the EEs up to its expiration; called the substitionary doctrine. The new bargaining agent can only bargain to shorten the term of the CBA. (Benguet Consolidated) Federation is merely the agent of the local union The local union remains as the basic unit of the association. It can disaffliate from the federation at any time. (Filipro v NLRC) Once the local union disaffiliates from the federation, it will be the one entitled to check-off union dues under the CBA. (Borschell v BLR) GR: Disaffiliation may only be done during the freedom period

But the union can disaffiliate at any time when the majority wants to do so An ER does not have the power to declare a union as the exclusive representative of its EEs for the purposes of collective bargaining. In other words, direct certification is not allowed. (Samahang Manggagawa v Secretary) The right to organize cannot be bargained away. CBA cannot override the LC and the Constitution provisions. (Southern Phil v Calleja) Govt EEs can organize, negotiate on terms and conditions which are not fixed by law, but they cannot declare a strike. (case cited in book) Owners of cooperatives cannot join, form or associate with labor union members. (case cited in book) Certification election cannot be conducted in a foreign organization which has immunity. (International Catholic v Calleja) Professors, associate professors, and those EEs who are not performing highly confidential functions are allowed to form their own union, separate and distinct from the union of non-academic personnel. (UP v Calleja) If there are 2 distinct business and 1 owner, there are 2 bargaining units. (Cruz-Valle v Leguesma, applying the commonality of interest doctrine) Security guards can join their own unions. So can supervisors. (Meralco)

Doctrines Article 247-248 The company should recognize the union, even if there is an intra-union dispute (like dispute on the officers). Depositing of union fees in escrow was considered interference and thus ULP. (DLSU) Party alleging ULP has the burden of proof. UST was not guilty of ULP because it had no duty to inquire into the validity of the election of the Gamilla group. Such issue is an intra-union controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the med-arbiter of the DOLE. (USTFU v UST) contracting out of jobs done as a business prerogative to minimize losses and not to restraint the right to selforganization is not ULP. (General Santos Coke) Totality of Conduct: The test of whether an ER has interfered with and coerced EEs in the exercise of their right to selforganization is whether the ER has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of EEs rights; and that it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any EE was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the ER if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the ER does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining. In other words, there must be a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct was performed by the ER. In this case, such conduct was present. (Insular Life) A no strike, no lockout clause only applies to economic conditions, not to cases of ULP. (Filpro Nestle) Labor contracts are in personam. Except: in cases of sale of the business in bad faith, then the buyer of the business is also liable. (Cruz case, wherein the court held that there ULP because the sale of the business was made in bad faith in order to avoid dealing with the union. Hence, both the previous owner and the buyer, considered a tort-feasor, were made liable for ULP)

Successor-ER doctrine is an enforcement of the legal recourse called piercing the veil of corporate entity.

The separateness of corporate personality will be disregarded if it is being used to escape corporate obligations. The people behind the veil wil be identified and made answerable for the corporate liablities. (Umali v CA) Retrenching union officers, with no reason, is ULP. (Bataan Shipyard) When a union disaffliates from a federation, there is no violation of the closed shop/union security clauses. It is when a member moves from one union to another that the closed shop clause is violated, not when the union itself disaffliates. Hence, a dismissal by the ER at the request of the federation based on the closed shop clause is ULP, there being no legal basis for the dismissal. (Tropical Hut) In that case, Tropical Hut was ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees, while the Federation was ordered to pay the backwages.

Doctrines Articles 251-259 The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion only when the following jurisdictional preconditions are present: (1) possession of the status of majority representation in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of majority representation; and (3) demand to bargain. Upon receipt of the proposals, management should respond within 10 calendar days, or else, itll be considered ULP. In this case, the proposals of the union were adopted as the CBA. Thats the danger of not responding, so respond, at least to confirm receipt of the proposals. (Kiok Loy, where the business subsequently closed down.) A moratorium suspending the CBA for 10-years was held as valid, and not in violation of the 5-year/3-year duration stated in the Labor Code, because of the particular facts revolving the PAL closure. (Rivera v PAL, either way, the court held that the CBA was suspended so the 5-year periods will not apply) during the freedom period, the parties may not only renew the existing CBA but may also propose and discuss modifications or amendments thereto. This includes whether certain groups of employees should be represented as part of the bargaining unit. (DLSU) In the exercise of its jurisdiction over labor-mgt relations, the med-arbiter has the authority, original and exclusive, to determine the existence of an ER-EE relationship between the parties. Once such determination is made, the med-arbiter can then decide the certification election case. His findings may only be reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of Labor who exercises appellate jurisdiction under Art. 259. (MY San) The 25% requirement is only directory, and that the mere filing of a PCE within the freedom period is sufficient bases for the issuance of an order for the holding of a certification election, subject to the submission of the consent signatures within a reasonable period from such filing. Also, the said requirement does not apply to a petition in intervention. Hence, PWUP is not required to submit 25% consent signatures. (PWUP v Leguesma) Withdrawal of laborers from a union before filing of petition for certification election is presumed voluntary and affects the 30% (now 25%) requirement for holding elections.

If the withdrawal is done after the petition has been filed, the withdrawals are deemed involuntary. (La Suerte)

Certification year bar refers to the one year period which begins from the issuance of the declaration of a final
certification election result, during which the certified union is required to negotiate with the ER, and certification election is prohibited. (Kaisahan) A PCE cannot be filed during a bargaining deadlock which is under arbitration or under valid notivce of strike. (Natl Congress) The minutes of negotiations do not form part of the CBA and cannot therefore be enforceable. (Samahang Manggagawa) The employees cannot contend that the minutes were promises by management to them. The ratified CBA is proof enough that the management did good on its duty to bargain. Labor contracts are not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise, labor contracts being in personam, thus binding only between the parties. Hence, when a companys permit is revoked and issued to a new company who rehires the employees of the former, the former company is liable for the separation pay of its employees. The new company is not liable. (E. Razon)

Doctrines Articles 260-262 If the case is filed with the grievance machinery, filing a suit elsewhere would be premature. (RCPI v NLRC) Hence, laches can not be considered against one who has filed in the grievance machinery, and only after the decision/inaction of the grievance machiney, did she file in the LA. While the voluntary arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement, he can assume that he has the necessary power to make a final settlement since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. Hence, even if the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date of regularization, law & jurisprudence give the VA enough leeway of authority as well as adequate prerogative to accomplish the reason for which the law on voluntary arbitration was created speedy labor justice and to settle, once and for all, the ultimate question of whether the employees are entitled to higher benefits. (Ludo v Saornido, wherein the VA was asked to determine the date of regularization, but also ruled on the monetary benefits, which in the end was held to be valid) In cases of illegal termination, CBA should clearly and unequivocally state that ULP and illegal termination is within VA jurisdiction. Hence, when the CBA states that the parties may refer it to the VA, and the aggrieved party chooses to file with the LA, the LA has jurisdiction to handle the case. (Vivero) When the CBA merely states that a grievance is one that includes disciplinary action imposed on any covered employee, the LA has jurisdiction (not the VA), absent an explicit statement that termination disputes should be submitted to the grievance machinery. (Landtex) When one is dismissed for violating the Code of Employee Discipline for grabbing a female employee, it is the LA who has jurisdiction, as the Code of Employee Discipline is company rules, not company personnel policies. (Navarro III) All these considered, there is nothing that stops the parties from submitting the case to a voluntary arbitrator, even during the course of proceedings with the LA. If the CBA states that the grievance machinery must first be used before filing a notice of strike, then this must be followed. (San Miguel)

Doctrines Articles 263 266 Employees doing illegal acts during a strike must be dealt individually, not collectively. The act of one cannot be attributed to another. (A. Soriano case) Protesting in front of the DOLE office is considered an illegal strike (Toyota) The 7-day strike ban after the strike vote is mandatory. (CCBPI) Striking on the 6 th day makes the strike illegal, no substantial compliance. It is important to determine whether the employee was a union officer or merely a member at the time of the strike, for the purposes of dismissal. (CCBPI, here the Court considered whether they were officers or members at the start of the strike) The authority of the Secretary includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the LA has exclusive jurisdiction. (International Pharma) Hence, the Secretary can consolidate cases which are filed with LA, after he has assumed jurisdiction and they are relevant to the case before him, for him to be able to competently and efficiently dispose of the dispute in its totality. A strike stage in violation of the Secretarys order is a prohibited activity and therefore illegal. Dismiss the employees. Posting of the assumption order within premises of the hospital is not a mode of service sanctioned by law. (FEU) It must be done by personal service because of the urgent nature. Hence, the union can not be held liable for an illegal strike given that the service was improper. If a union strikes pending the resolution of the notice of strike, it is illegal, even if the mayor issues them a permit allowing the union to conduct a mass protest action. (Santa Rosa Coke) Its still a strike even if the union baptizes it with a different term. Article 263 (g) directs that the employer must readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Hence, when after the union stages a valid strike, the employer dismisses employees, the dismissed employees must be readmitted to work. If the order of the Secretary does not readmit them, she has committed grave abuse of discretion.

Hodgepodge Doctrines from 2009-2011 cases When the employer believes that the union is no longer the rightful representative of the employees because more than 90% of the workers left and formed another union, the employer is not guilty of ULP for not negotiating with the former union. It just wanted to foster industrial peace by bowing to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its rank and file workers and by negotiating and concluding in good faith a CBA with CABELA (union 2). Such actions of CAB are nowhere tantamount to anti-unionism, the evil sought to be punished in cases of unfair labor practices. (Central Azucarera de Bais Employees Union) It is no longer necessary to file a petition to declare a strike illegal if the union officers refused to follow the orders of the Secretary of Labor who has assumed jurisdiction. (Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa) The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal. Filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal is unnecessary. (Jackbuilt v Jackbuilt EU, wherein a prior decision of the NLRC already found that

strike illegal is unnecessary. (Jackbuilt v Jackbuilt EU, wherein a prior decision of the NLRC already found that strikers did illegal acts. Hence, it would seem that a prior decision of the NLRC that illegal acts were committed is still necessary) Shouting slanderous and scurrilous words against the owners, using obsence language to prevent other laborers to go to work, using abusive language against the patrons of the establishment, and shaking their fists and threatening non-striking employees with bodily harm have been considered as illegal acts. (A Soriano) Art 264 does not require the employer to immediately report the illegal acts. The Labor Secretary can resolve a bargaining deadlock by granting a wage increase if it was based on the prevailing economic indicators in the workplace, in the industry, and in local and regional economy; it can also look at the regional financial crisis and the downturn of the economy, which all impact the performance of the company. (Bagong Pagkakaisa) When employees of a bank are absorbed by another bank pursuant to the Articles and Plan of Merger and the absorbing banks union has a union shop clause, the absorbed employees are deemed new employees for purposes of the union shop clause. Hence, they have to join the union as a condition of their continued employment. (BPI v BPI Employees Union Davao, take note that the employees here were absorbed because of the Articles and Plan of Merger, and not automatically.) For purposes of membership in the bargaining unit, confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two (2) criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the confidential employee rule. There is no showing in this case that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted or acted in a confidential capacity to managerial employees and obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. And even assuming that they had exposure to internal business operations of the company, respondent claimed, this is not per se ground for their exclusion in the bargaining unit of the daily-paid rank-and-file employees. (Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa Sa Asia Brewery) For Atty. Cadiz, it is enough that the employees process confidential inofromation, no need to assist in labor relations stuff. It is within management prerogative to implement job evaluation which will streamline companys operations and to place its employees in their proper positions. It does not guarantee any adjustment in the salaries of the employees; the promotions being mere changes in nomenclature. (SCA Hygiene Products v SCA, wherein the employees still occupied the same positions without any additional duties and responsibilities after the job evaluation) For company practices to be considered regular, they must have been done over a long period of time and must be shown to be consistent and deliberate. A company is not guilty of ULP when it suspends negotiations because of valid reasons like when it temporarily shuts down because of its failure to procure an Environment Compliance Certificate. (Manila Mining Corp EA-FFW v Manila Mining) When the exclusive bargaining agent and a contending union are battling it out, and the employer decides to place union dues in a trust account and deals with the splinter group, the LA has jurisdiction over the ULP case between the exclusive bargaining agent and the employer because the issue is the act of the employer. However, the LA will not have jurisdiction between the dispute between the exclusive bargaining agent and the contending union since its an intra-union dispute. An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the unions constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union.

In this case, the employer was guilty of ULP for dealing with splinter group. (Compare this with Central Azucarera there, the splinter group had 90% of the support, here only 147/257 employees supported the splinter group) For a ULP case to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, and for the NLRC to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereon, the allegations in the complaint must show prima facie the concurrence of two things, namely: (1) gross violation of the CBA; and (2) the violation pertains to the economic provisions of the CBA. This, however, should not be construed to apply to violations of the CBA which can be considered as gross violations per se, such as utter disregard of the very existence of the CBA itself, similar to what happened in this case. When an employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter union despite the existence of its valid CBA with the duly certified and exclusive bargaining agent, the former indubitably abandons its recognition of the latter and terminates the entire CBA. (Employees Union of Bayer v Bayer and Remigio) A strike may be valid at the start, but become illegal once strikers commit illegal acts during the strike. (Phimco Industries Inc. v Phimco Industries Labor Association). But remember, the dismissal of the erring strikers must still follow due process, lest the employer be held liable for nominal damages. The corporate veil may be pierced only when the separate juridical personality is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime. Control by the mother company by itself does not mean that the subsidiary is an alter ego. (NASECO v National Service Corporation, wherein the security guards wanted the mother corporation to pay for the CBA benefits of the subsidiary) Mere fact that a corporation owns all of the stocks of another company, taken alone, is not sufficient to justify their being treated as one entity. (PEA-PTGWO v NLRC) Employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not commit any illegal act during the strike. (Escario v NLRC 2010) Will strikers be entitled to backwages? In economic strikes, no. No work, no pay. In ULP strikes, it depends. For those members who were terminated because of ULP, yes, from the time of their illegal dismissal. For those members who struck because of ULP, no. If the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, he will be granted backwages. But the strike must be legal, to begin with, and the lock out illegal. (Solidbank v Solidbank EU) Only a certified or duly recognized bargaining agent may file a notice or request for preventive mediation. Thats the EBR or the employer for ULP/deadlock cases, and a LLO (where there is no EBR) but only for ULP cases. Hence, individual members and federations have no authority to file a notice for mediation. (Insular Hotel EUNFL v Waterfront) The Secretary of Labor may award wage increases higher than that provided for in a MOA which was entered into by the employer and employee in a CBA dispute. The SOLE may resolve all issues involved in the controversy including the award of wage increases and benefits. (Cirtek EU-FFW v Cirtek) Protesting outside the office of the SOLE, after he has assumed jurisdiction over a case, is considered as an illegal strike. In the case of Solidbank v Gamier, the Court said that the comparison with the Philippine Blooming Mills case could not be done, as there was a labor dispute in the instant case, as compared to none in the latter case.

Employer just cant dismiss all union members. It must distinguish between union officers and mere members.

And as we all know, the liability for the prohibited acts have to be determined on an individual basis. (A Soriano) GR: The SOLE does not have jurisdiction over appeals to the BLR from the Regional Directors in petitions for cancellations of registration. Exception: When the BLR director inhibits himself. In this instance, the SOLE can assume jurisdiction over the case because she merely steps into the shoes of the BLR Director under her power to supervise and control (Admin Code.) The DOLE Secretary's act of taking over the function of the BLR Director was warranted and necessitated by the latter's inhibition from the case and the objective to "maintain the integrity of the decision, as well as the Bureau itself (Grand Plaza Hotel Corporation v National Union of Workers Blah Blah Blah) While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original 5-year term together will all other CBA provisions, any such amdendment or term in excess of 5 years will not carry with it a change in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. The exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond 5 years and the representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. Hence, even if the CBA is extended, the exclusive bargaining status is effective only for 5 years and can be challenged during the freedom period. (FVC Labor Union v Sama-Samang Nagkaka) The forwarders employees (employees who were part of entities used in contracting out by the employer) are not part of the bargaining unit because they are not part of the company, and hence cannot be placed under the union. (Temic v Temic Union) Voluntary arbiters do not have jurisdiction over 3 rd persons. (Temic) Where a union believes that an employer committed ULP and the surrounding circumstances warranted such belief in good faith, the resulting strike may be considered legal although, subsequently, such allegations of unfair labor practices were found to be groundless. (Good faith strike! Hotel Enterprises v Samahan) All rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, whether probationary or permanent are entitled to vote. Even a CBA can not override this. (National Union of Workers in Hotels v Secretary) The period of reckoning in determining who shall be included in the list of eligible voters is, in cases where timely appeal has been filed from the Order of the Med-Arbiter, the date when the Order of the Secretary, whether affirming or denying the appeal, becomes final and executory which is 10 days from receipts thereof by the parties. (National Union v Secretary) Two-fold objective of the double majority rule determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and to ascertain the majority representation of the bargaining representative, if the employees desire to be represented at all by anyone. (National Union) The individual acceptance of a unions members of an award (and the resulting payment by the employer thereof) does not operate as a ratification of an appealed decision, nor is it a waiver to receive further benefits, or what they may be entitled to under the law. (UST v Samahan Manggagawa) A labor union exists for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. What the individuals may not do alone, the labor organization can accomplish better. A signing bonus is a grantmotivated by the goodwill generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated and signed between the employer and union. The award of a signing bonus is not proper when no CBA was successfully negotiated by the parties. (UST) Where the purported withdrawal of support for the registration of the union was made after the documents were submitted to the DOLE, the logical conclusion is that the employees were not totally free from the employers pressure,

submitted to the DOLE, the logical conclusion is that the employees were not totally free from the employers pressure, and so the voluntariness of the employees execution of the affidavits becomes suspect. (Mariwasa v DOLE, where the affidavits were all pro forma ) The 20% requirement for union registration need not be maintained all throughout its existence. (Mariwasa) An assumption order is executory even while it is being questioned. (YSS Employees Union) It operates to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. Hence, the employers insistence on the exclusion of the employees from the coverage of the return-to-work order seriously impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a labor dispute that he deems inimical to the national economy. It does not interfere with management prerogative, it merely regulates them for the national interest. In the grant of vacation leave privileges to an employee, the employer is given the leeway to impose conditions on the entitlement to and commutation of the same, as the grant of vacation leave is not a standard of law, but a prerogative of management. Thus, management has the authority to impose certain conditions on it. It can even compel its employees to exhaust all their vacation leave credits. (PNCC Skyway v PNCC, wherein the CBA gave power to the management to schedule the leaves of the employees, taking into consideration their preference) Bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver. It is granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which contributed to the success of the employers business and made possible the realization of profits. For it to be enforceable, it must have been promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties. So if its in the CBA, it becomes a contractual obligation. Thus business losses are a feeble ground to repudiate (or as Sarah Palin would say, refudiate ) its obligation under the CBA. (Lepanto v Lepanto)