Illustrative Cases

Labor Relations

Unfair Labor Practice

Carlo Tristan Canta

Economic Coercion and Inducement
The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Assn. VS. Insular Life Insurance Co.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

•The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers &
Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU (hereinafter referred
to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate
CBAs with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the
Companies);

•Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia; the latter was formerly the
secretary-treasurer of the FFW and acting president of the Insular Life/FGU unions and the Insular Life
Building Employees Association. Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular issued in his name and
signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining
the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail;

•Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies; negotiations were conducted on the Union’s
proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock on the issue of union shop, as a result of which the
Unions filed on January 27, 1958 a notice of strike for “deadlock on collective bargaining.” The issue was
dropped subsequently (in short, nagkasundo). But, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with
no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on the matter of salary increases.
Economic Coercion and Inducement
The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Assn. VS. Insular Life Insurance Co.

ISSUE:

•WHETHER THE Companies re guilty of unfair labor practice when they sent out individual letters to the
strikers with the promise of additional benefits and notfying them to either return to work or lose their
jobs.

RULING:

•The act of an employer in notifying absent employees individually during a strike following unproductive
efforts at collective bargaining that the plant would be operated the next day and that their jobs were open
for them should they want to come in has been held to be an unfair labor practice, as an active interference
with the right of collective bargaining through dealing with the employees individually instead of through
their collective bargaining representatives.
Although the union is on strike, the employer is still under obligation to bargain with the union as the
employees’ bargaining representative.
Concerted Activities
Philippine Blooming Mills Employee Org. VS Phil. Blooming Mills Co.

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union
composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners
Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio
Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union.
PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express their grievances
against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police;

• Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang
on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the
workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts
(from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the
respondent Company of their proposed demonstration;

• The Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO after learning
about the planned mass demonstration. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was
confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out by the union that the demonstration was not a strike
against the company but was in factual exercise of the laborers inalienable constitutional right to
freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances.
Concerted Activities
Philippine Blooming Mills Employee Org. VS Phil. Blooming Mills Co.

Facts of the Case

• The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found guilty of
bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of
Industrial Relations for being filed two days late. They then filed with the respondent court a petition
for relief from the order dated Oct. 9,1969 on the ground that their failure to file their motion for
reconsideration on time was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the
president of the petitioner Union and of the office clerk of their counsel. However, without waiting for
any resolution on their petition for relief, they filed with the Supreme Court a notice of appeal.

ISSUE:

• Whether the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA.
•Whether the company is guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing its employees.
Concerted Activities
Philippine Blooming Mills Employee Org. VS Phil. Blooming Mills Co.

RULING:

•The Supreme Court did not sustain the conclusion of the CIR. The demonstration held by petitioners was
against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer. The demonstration was
purely an exercise of their freedom of expression in general and of their right to assembly. As a matter of fact,
it was the duty of the private respondent firm to protect the petitioner Union from harassment of local police
officers. The pretension of the employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its
employees from 6 o’clock to 2 o’clock in the afternoon is a plea for the preservation merely of their property
rights. The primacy of human rights such as freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for
redress of grievances should be sustained over property rights.

•SC said that the respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because of the refusal on the
part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against
alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight petitioners from the service constituted an
unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition for
redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4 in relation
to Section 3 of Republic Act 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act.
Suspension Election Day
CLLC GE Gochangco Employees Assn. VS NLRC

FACTS OF THE CASE

•Petitioner union is a local chapter of the Central Luzon Labor Congress (CLLC), a legitimate labor federation
duly registered with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), while the individual petitioners are
former employees of private respondent who were officers and members of the petitioner union.

•Private respondent is a corporation engaged in packing and crating, general hauling, warehousing, sea van
and freight forwarding,

•Sometime in January 1980, the majority of the rank and file employees of respondent firm organized the e.g.
Gochangco Workers Union as an affiliate of the CLLC. On January 23, 1980, the union filed a petition for
certification election. The MOLE Region 11 office set the hearing for the petition on February 27,1980.

•On February 7,1980, the CLLC national president wrote the general manager of respondent firm informing
him of the organization of the union and requesting for a labor management conference to normalize
employer-employee relations

•On February 26,1980, the, union sent a written notice to respondent firm requesting permission for certain
member officers and members of the union to attend the hearing of the petition for certification election. The
management refused to acknowledge receipt of said notice
Suspension Election Day
CLLC GE Gochangco Employees Assn. VS NLRC

FACTS OF THE CASE:

•Claiming that private respondent instigated the confiscation of their gate passes to prevent them from
performing their duties and that respondent firm did not pay them their overtime pay, 13th month pay and
other benefits, petitioner union and its members filed a complaint for constructive lockout and unfair labor
practice against private respondent, docketed as R03-AB Case No. 486-80 on March 10, 1980.

• On March 12, 1980, private respondent filed an application for clearance to dismiss Cornelio Pangilinan, Leo
Tropics, Olimpio Gumin, Reynaldo Dayrit, Odilon Lising, Edilberto Quiambao; Ernesto Ramirez, Ernesto Galang,
Buenaventura Puno, Arnel Calilung, Romeo Guina, docketed as R03-AB Case No. 556-80. Subsequently private
respondent filed another clearance to dismiss Jesus Daquigan, Serafin Pawa and Rufo Bugayong, docketed as
R03-A-B Case No. 55780.

•On April 22,1980, petitioner Ricardo Dormingo who was preventively suspended on April 17, 1980 filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice against the latter, docketed as R03-AB Case No. 55880.

•On April 30, 1980, the services of nine (9) more union members, namely: Ernesto Tuason, Israel Vino, Pedro
Santos, Juanita Suba, Edilberto Sarmiento, Diosalino Pandan, Antonio Razon, Benjamin Capiz and Jesus
Sembrano, were terminated by private respondent on the ground that its contract with the U.S. Air Force had
expired. The rune employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondents on June 2,
1980. docketed as R03-AB Case No. 663-80.
Suspension Election Day
CLLC GE Gochangco Employees Assn. VS NLRC

ISSUE:

•Whether the Company is guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.

RULING:

We are convinced that the respondent company is indeed guilty of an unfair labor practice. It is no coincidence
that at the time said respondent issued its suspension and termination orders, the petitioners were in the
midst of a certification election preliminary to a labor management conference, purportedly, "to normalize
employer-employee relations." 5 It was within the legal right of the petitioners to do so, 6 the exercise of
which was their sole prerogative, 7 and in which management may not as a rule interfere. 8 In this
connection, the respondent company deserves our strongest condemnation for ignoring the petitioners'
request for permission for some time out to attend to the hearing of their petition before the med-arbiter. It is
not only an act of arrogance, but a brazen interference as well with the employees right to self-organization,
contrary to the prohibition of the Labor Code against unfair labor practices. 9
Discrimination
Bondoc VS CIIR

FACTS OF THE CASE

•On January 10, 1968, a complaint for unfair labor practices under Section 4(a), sub-sections 4 and 5 of
Republic Act No. 875 was filed by the Acting Prosecutor of the CIR against the private respondents based on
the complaint of petitioner Fortunato Da. Bondoc charging the private respondents with having discriminated
against him in the giving of promotions to its employees because he was not a member of any labor
organization. Bondoc prayed for a cease and desist order against the respondents and for his promotion to
the position of General Road Foreman effective July 1, 1962 with the corresponding salary and benefits.

•Petitioner presented evidence in the CIR to show that, in derogation of his seniority, rank, competence, and
fitness, and because he did not belong to any labor union, private respondents discriminated against him by
promoting and appointing Simeon Mendoza on July 1, 1962 to the position of Road Foreman of the
Engineering Department, instead of him. Again, on January 1, 1965, Simeon Mendoza, instead of petitioner,
was promoted to the position of General Road Foreman of the Engineering Department. Private respondents
paid no heed to petitioner's protests against such discrimination. Instead of promoting him, the private
respondents assigned him at the Hearing Committee without per diems. When Simeon Mendoza retired as
General Road Foreman, private respondents appointed someone else - Simeon Malinay - to the vacant
position, by-passing the petitioner. Finally, private respondents subdivided the Central Division of the
Engineering Department, thereby reducing petitioner's area of responsibility. Petitioner alleged he had
exhausted all his administrative remedies in vain.
Discrimination
Bondoc VS CIIR

FACTS OF THE CASE

•Answering the complaint, the private respondents alleged that petitioner was not next-in-rank to the
position of Road Foreman; that based on individual work merits and the Revised Civil Service Rules, Mendoza
and Malinay obtained higher ratings than the petitioner; that Mendoza was promoted to Assistant General
Foreman because he was next-in-rank; that Simeon Malinay was next-in-rank to Simeon Mendoza; that when
the position of General Road Foreman became vacant, Mendoza was recommended for the position but his
retirement precluded his appointment thereto; that the position of General Road Foreman was later
abolished; that the reorganization was for the best interest of the company; that contrary to petitioner's
allegation, his transfer to the Hearing Committee was done at his own request. As for per diems, he was paid
for the first month, but he was not paid per diems for services rendered in excess of one month because it
would have been contrary to law, rules and regulations.

ISSUE:

•Whether the CIR erred in deciding that there was no ULP committed by the Company.
Discrimination
Bondoc VS CIIR

RULING:

•The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

•"SEC. 4. Unfair Labor Practices. —

"(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer

"(4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; . . . (As amended by R.A. No. L-3350,
approved June 17, 1961)."cralaw virtua1aw library
Non-Membership or Withdrawal From Union
Visayas Stevedore VS CIR

FACTS OF THE CASE

•The Company is engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels, with a branch office in Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental under the management of said Rafael Xaudaro. Its workers are supplied by the United Workers and
Farmers Association, a labor organization — hereinafter referred to as UWFA — whose men (affiliated to
various labor unions) have regularly worked as laborers of the Company during every milling season since
immediately after World War II up to the milling season immediately preceding November 11, 1955, when the
Company refused to engage the services of Venancio Dano-og, Buenaventura Agarcio and 137 other persons
named in the complaint filed in case No. 62-ULP-Cebu of the Court of Industrial Relations — and hereinafter
referred to as the Complainants — owing, they claim, to their union activities. At the behest of the UWFA and
the Complainants, a complaint for unfair labor practice was, accordingly, filed against the Company and
Xaudaro with the Court of Industrial Relations — hereinafter referred to as the CIR — in which it was docketed
as Case No. 62-ULP-Cebu. In due course, its Presiding Judge issued the order appealed from, which was
affirmed by the CIR sitting en banc. Hence this petition for review by certiorari.

ISSUE:

•Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the company and the complainants;
•Whether the company has been guilty of unfair labor practice; and
•Whether the order of reinstatement of complainants, with backpay, is a reversible error.
Non-Membership or Withdrawal From Union
Visayas Stevedore VS CIR

RULING:
With respect to the first question, the Company maintains that it had never had an employer-employee relationship
with the Complainants, the latter’s services having allegedly been engaged by the UWFA, not by the Company, and
that, in any event, whatever contractual relation there may have been between the Company and the Complainants
had ceased at the end of each milling season, so that the Company can not be guilty of unfair labor practice in refusing
to renew said relation at the beginning of the milling season in November, 1955.

This pretense is untenable. Although Complainants, through the labor union to which they belong, form part of UWFA,
there was no independent contract between the latter, as an organization, and the Company. After the first milling
season subsequently to the liberation of the Philippines, Complainants merely reported for work, at the beginning of
each succeeding milling season, and their services were invariably availed of by the Company, although an officer of
the UWFA or union concerned determined the laborers who would work at a given time, following a rotation system
arranged therefor.

In the performance of their duties, Complainants worked, however, under the direction and control of the officers of
the Company, whose paymaster, or disbursing officer paid the corresponding compensation directly to said
Complainants, who, in turn, acknowledged receipt in payrolls of the company. We have already held that laborers
working under these conditions are employees of the Company, in the same manner as watchmen or security guards
furnished, under similar circumstances, by watchmen or security agencies, inasmuch as the agencies and/or labor
organizations involved therein merely performed the role of a representative or agent of the employer in the
recruitment of men needed for the operation of the latter’s business.
Non-Membership or Withdrawal From Union
Visayas Stevedore VS CIR

RULING:

As regards the alleged termination of employer-employee relationship between the Company and the
Complainants at the conclusion of each milling season, it is, likewise, settled that the workers concerned
are considered, not separated from the service, but, merely on leave of absence, without pay, during the
off-season, their employer-employee relationship being merely deemed suspended, not severed, in the
meanwhile. 4

Referring to the unfair labor practice charge against the Company, we find, with the CIR, that said charge
is substantially borne out by the evidence of record, it appearing that the workers not admitted to work
beginning from November, 1955, were precisely those belonging to the UWFA, and that Xaudaro, the
Company branch Manager, had told them point bank that severance of their connection with the UWFA
was the remedy, if they wanted to continue working with the Company
Company Domination
Progressive Dev’t Corp. VS CIR

FACTS OF THE CASE

•In September 1962, Araneta Coliseum Employees Association (ACEA) a legitimate labor organization in behalf
of forty-eight (48) members, instituted Case No. 3304-ULP for unfair labor practice in the Court of Industrial
Relations against Progressive Development Corporation (PDC), a domestic business entity operating the
Araneta Coliseum, Jorge Araneta, Judy A. Roxas, Manuel B. Jover and Ramon Llorente, as officers of the
corporation PDC and Progressive Employees Union (PEU), a labor organization existing in the PDC.

•The complaint alleged that the PDC, through its officers, initiated a move to disauthorize the counsel of the
complainant ACEA from appearing in a union conference with the respondents, petitioners herein; that the
supervisors of PDC encouraged, and assisted in, the formation of the Progressive Employees Union (PEU) and
coerced the employees, particularly the individual complainants, to disaffiliate from the complainant union
and to affiliate with the PEU; that in July and August 1962 the respondents, petitioners herein, discriminated
against the individual complainants by either not giving them their working schedules, lessening their number
of working days and eventually dismissing them from their employment, because of their refusal to disaffiliate
from their union and join the Progressive Employees Union
Company Domination
Progressive Dev’t Corp. VS CIR

FACTS OF THE CASE

•The respondents, corporation PDC, Jorge L. Araneta, Judy A. Roxas and Manuel B. Jover claimed in their
answer that the individual complainants were merely casuals or temporary employees and their services
depended on the availability of work as ushers, usherettes, guards and janitors when there were shows,
performances or exhibits at the Araneta Coliseum. They alleged that they did not interfere with the
complainant union and in fact they met and conferred with said union's counsel; that they did not initiate nor
assist the PEU; that they did not discriminate against the individual complainants nor dismiss them as said
complainants were only casuals or temporary employees; that the services of complainant Gregorio Viray
were terminated because the office to which he was assigned was closed and that complainant Reynaldo Asis
was dismissed for collecting his salary without actually rendering the corresponding services.

•The Progressive Employees Union (PEU) denied that the officers and supervisors of the corporation PDC
initiated and assisted in its formation and claimed that its organization is the joint efforts of the
overwhelming majority of the employees and laborers of the corporation PDC, free from any undue influence,
interference and/or intimidation from any party. The PEU claimed that the institution of the unfair labor
practice case by the complainants is a desperate attempt to unduly delay the proceedings in Case No. 1054-
MC for certification election. 5 Ramon Llorente denied all imputations against him in the complaint and
alleged that Gregorio Viray, a casual janitor, was separated when his office was closed. Llorente claimed that
he severed his employment with the PDC in June 1962 and could not have committed the acts complained of
against him in July and August 1962. 6
Company Domination
Progressive Dev’t Corp. VS CIR

ISSUE:

Whether the CIR erred im declarimh that the subject company is guilt of ULP.

RULING:

•The Supreme Court further affirmed the decision of the CIR citing that the petitioner company is guilty of
unfair labor practice
Dismissal-Union Activities
Carmel Craft- Corp. V. NLRC

FACTS OF THE CASE

•The record shows that after its registration as a labor union, the Carmelcraft Employees Union sought
but did not get recognition from the petitioners. Consequently, it filed a petition for certification
election in June 1987. On July 13, 1987, Carmelcraft Corporation, through its president and general
manager, Carmen Yulo, announced in a meeting with the employees that it would cease operations on
August 13, 1987, due to serious financial losses. Operations did cease as announced. On August 17,
1987, the union filed a complaint with the Department of Labor against the petitioners for illegal
lockout, unfair labor practice and damages, followed the next day with another complaint for payment
of unpaid wages, emergency cost of living allowances, holiday pay, and other benefits. On November
29, 1988, the Labor Arbiter declared the shutdown illegal and violative of the employees’ right to self-
organization. The claim for unpaid benefits was also granted
Dismissal-Union Activities
Carmel Craft- Corp. V. NLRC

ISSUE:

•Whether the NLRC erred in ordering the herein petitioner to compensate the employees of the
company

RULING:

•The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision of the NLRC citing that the herein petitioners contention
that the reason for their shut down is due to financial loss. Verily, they also concurred with the respondents
word that the establishment of the Carmel Craft Union is the reason why the company decided to close its
operation.
Testimony
Itogon Suyoc Mines Inc. VS Baldo

FACTS OF THE CASE

•In a complaint dated November 18, 1958, an Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations charged the
herein petitioner- employer, Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., and Claude Fertig, its General Superintendent, of having
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 4 (a), paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Republic Act No.
875. The complaint substantially alleged that A. Manaois and Jose Baldo, employees of herein petitioner, were
dismissed by said petitioner on June 9, 1957 and March 5, 1958, respectively, because of their membership with the
herein respondent Sañgilo-Itogon Workers Union and for having testified against the petitioner in a certification
election case involving the employees of the petitioner (Case No. 3-MC-PANG.). The complaint prayed that an order
be issued against the herein petitioner to cease and desist from the labor practices complained of and that the
complaining employees, A. Manaois and Jose Baldo, be reinstated to their former positions in the mining company
without loss of employee benefits and with back wages from the date of their respective dismissal until the date of
their actual reinstatement.

•The petitioner herein (respondent below), in its answer to the complaint, admitted the fact of the dismissal of the
two complaining employees, but alleged that the complaining employees were dismissed for just and lawful
causes, namely, "inefficiency, utter disregard and violation of safety rules and regulations established and enforced
by the respondent for the protection of the lives of the employees and properties of the respondent company, utter
disregard of the company property and poor attendance records."cralaw virtua1aw library
Testimony
Itogon Suyoc Mines Inc. VS Baldo

FACTS OF THE CASE

•Whether the CIR gravely abused its discretion for finding Itogon Suyoc guilty of Unfair Labor Practice.

RULING:

•In its decision, the SC affirmed the assailed decision citing that the company is guilty of ULP. That based on
the decision of the CIR, it ias proven that the main reason why Baldo was removed from employment was due
to him being member of the subject union. Further, it can be inferred from the facts that baldo also testified
against the company in a certificate of elction case which pending before the court
Thank You