b) Speech, espionage, economic coercion Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Association vs.

Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. c) Concerted activities P !E" vs. P ! Co. #. $on%union membership or &ithdra&al from membership as a condition for employment '(ello&%)og Contract) Article #*+ 'b) ,isayan Stevedore -rans. Co vs. $L.C /uic0 1acts2 137 UWFA seasonal workers were dismissed by the company. The workers filed a ULP case with the !" of eb# and r#led in their fa$or. ompany appealed. .uling3.atio2 There was employer%employee relationship. The workers who were not admitted to work belon& to the Union and the ompany 'ranch (ana&er told them that the severance of connection with the UWFA was the remedy if they wanted to continue working with the company. 4. Contracting out to discourage union Article #*+ 'c) Comple5 Electronics Employees Association vs. $L.C /uic0 1acts2 onsolidated case where the #nion p#shed for retrenchment pay of 1mo)yr. ompany ref#sed the #nion*s demand. Union filed a notice of strike+ and company transferred its machinery to another site. .uling3.atio2 .una&ay shop 6 relocation moti$ated by anti% #nion anim#s than b#siness reasons !n this case+ there was no r#naway shop. The #nion failed to show that the primary reason for the clos#re of the company was #nion acti$ities. There was no ille&al locko#t b#t a complete cessation of b#siness+ which was well within the mana&ement prero&ati$e. *. Company domination of union '(ello& 7nion)

Progressive )evelopment Corporation vs. CI. /uic0 1acts2 P, dismissed members of A -A who ref#sed to disaffiliate and .oin P-U. .atio2 adges of a company union % P-U ne$er collected d#es from its members % P-U members are now re&#lar employees % The #nion became inacti$e after the death of P, *s co#nsel % After winnin& the certification election+ the #nion ne$er entered into a 'A #ntil it disbanded 9. )iscrimination to encourage or discourage unionism Article #*+ 'e), #*: 'b) ,alid )iscrimination2 7nion Security Clause )el !onte Philippines Inc. vs. ;aldivar /uic0 1acts2 Timbal was dismissed d#e to #nion sec#rity cla#se in a 'A between ALU and ,el (onte /for disloyalty0. LA+ 1L" + and A held that she was ille&ally dismissed /false testimony0. .atio2 2tip#lations in the 'A a#thori3in& dismissal of employees are of e4#al import as the &ro#nds for dismissal on the Labor ode. !t is not a restriction of the ri&ht or freedom of association. 5owe$er+ in this case+ it was fo#nd that the testimony of the one who implicated Timbal was ill% moti$ated. The ,isloyalty 'oard was also or&ani3ed by the federation. 2ome ne#tral body sho#ld ha$e decided on the dismissal. Elcee 1arms vs. $L.C /uic0 1acts2 omplaint for ille&al dismissal filed by 163 employees of -lcee Farms. The company was then leased to 7arnelle+ then 7arnelle s#bleased the property to 5!LLA. The latter entered into a 'A with U2F8 with a closed shop pro$ision. /5eld9 Pro$ision $alid0 <. .etaliation against employee for his3her testimony 3 Indirect discrimination Article #*+ 'f) Itogon%Suyoc !ines Inc. vs. aldo

Article #*+ 'd), #8# 'i)

/uic0 1acts2 :ose 'aldo was dismissed and aired his complaint thro#&h &rie$ance proced#re. While the case was pendin&+ he was asked not to testify on a certification election proceedin&+ b#t he did. The 7rie$ance ommittee dropped his case. =eld2 There was ULP. C.4 >ross violation of the C A Article #*+ 'i), #*: 'f), #<8 San !iguel Corp. vs. $L.C /uic0 1acts2 2( declared ;; positions as red#ndant+ #nion filed &rie$ance cases for the retrenched employees. ,#rin& the proceedin&s+ most of the employees were redeployed+ while others accepted early retirement. 1o2 /deadlock0+ ULP case a&ainst 2( . =eld2 The &ro#nd relied #pon by the #nion are non% strikeable. !nstead of askin& the onciliation 'oard to decide the conflict+ the #nion declared a deadlock and filed a notice of strike. Arellano 7niversity Employees and ?or0ers 7nion vs. CA /uic0 1acts2 ,ed#ction in p#rs#ance with 'A. Union filed a notice of strike. 28L- certified it to comp#lsory arbitration. Union filed <nd notice of strike+ and held a strike. 2chool petitioned 1L" to declare strike ille&al+ which was &ranted. =eld2 1o ULP+ 'A $iolation m#st be &ross. (embers sho#ld be reinstated.