Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HELD:
YES. Even assuming that respondents
acted in their individual capacities
when they wrote the letter-charge
they were nonetheless protected for
they were engaged in concerted
activity, in the exercise of their right
of self-organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, interference with which
constitutes an unfair labor practice.
The joining in protestor demands,
even by a small group of employees, if
in furtherance of their interests, is a
concerted activity protected by the
Industrial Peace Act. It is not
necessary that union activity be
involved or that collective bargaining
be contemplated.
Re: Meaning of Duty to Bargain
What the RB should have done was to
refer
the
letter-charge
to
the
grievance committee. This was its
duty, failing which it committed an
unfair labor practice RA 875 which
makes it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "to dismiss, discharge or
otherwise prejudice or discriminate
against an employee for having filed
charges or for having given or being
about to give testimony under this
Act."
Collective bargaining does not end
with the execution of an agreement. It
is a continuous process. The duty to
bargain imposes on the parties during
the term of their agreement the
mutual obligation to meet and confer
promptly and expeditiously and in
good faith for the purpose of adjusting
any grievances or question arising
under such agreement and a
Appealed
decision
is
Sometime
later,
the
company
distributed the profit-sharing benefit
not only to the managers and
supervisors but also to all rank-andfile employees not covered by the CBA
because they were excluded from the
definition of bargaining unit.
This caused the respondent Union to
file a notice of strike alleging that
petitioner was guilty of unfair labor
practice because the union were
discriminated against in the grant of
the profit sharing benefits
ISSUE:
Whether the grant by management of
profit sharing benefits to its non-union
member employees is discriminatory
against its workers who are union
members and amounts to ULP?
HELD:
NO. Petition Granted. There can be no
discrimination
committed
by
petitioner as the situation of the union
employees are different and distinct
from
the
non-union
employees.
Discrimination per se is not unlawful.
There can be no discrimination where
the employees concerned are not
similarly situated.
The grant by petitioner of profit
sharing benefits to the employees
outside the "bargaining unit" falls
under the ambit of its managerial
prerogative. It appears to have been
done in good faith and without ulterior
motive. More so when as in this case
there is a clause in the CBA where the
employees are classified into those
who are members of the union and
those who are not. In the case of the
union members, they derive their
benefits
from
the
terms
and
conditions of the CBA contract which
constitute the law between the
contracting parties. Both the employer
violates
the
CBA,
RULING:
No. The lower court correctly held that
the CDS is a valid exercise of
management prerogatives. 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.
SMC's offer to compensate the
members of its sales force who will be
adversely
affected
by
the
implementation of the CDS by paying
them a so- called "back adjustment
commission" to make up for the
commissions they might lose as a
result of the CDS proves the
company's good faith and lack of
intention to bust their union.
FACTS:
7 | LABOR RELATIONS Digested Cases | Venessa Barbiran, Year 3 | UPang
reported
back
for
work,
the
Companies refused to readmit them
without the necessary clearances. And
when all, except three, were able to
secure and subsequently present the
required clearances, the respondents
still refused to take them back and
instead
they
received
letters
confirming the termination of their
employment
due
to
acts
of
misconduct while picketing during
the strike.
d. Yes. The lower court should have
ordered the reinstatement of the
officials and members of the Unions,
with full back wages as it is clear that
the Unions went on strike because of
the unfair labor practices committed
by the Companies. Where the strike
was induced and provoked by
improper conduct on the part of an
employer amounting to an 'unfair
labor practice,' the strikers are
entitled to reinstatement with back
pay.
Accordingly, the decision of the CIR
was reversed and set aside, and
another is entered, ordering the
respondents
to
reinstate
the
dismissed members of the petitioning
Unions
to
their
former
or
comparatively similar positions, with
backwages.
54. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs.
PINES
HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASS'N
G.R. No. L-30818
September 28, 1972
FACTS:
Three appeals by certiorari (L-30755,
L-30818 and L-30139) were filed on
various dates in 1969 involving the
same parties and various incidents
between them, commencing from an
ISSUES:
1. WON the Petitioner's was correct in
claiming that the order of the court
(as regards L-30139) was prejudicial.
2. WON the Court acted out of its
jurisdiction (as regards L-30138) in
issuing the appealed payment order of
the 70 employees.
HELD:
1. No. What the union had actually
filed on March 28, 1968 was a
separate "Urgent petition with prayer
for a restraining order." No prejudice
could be said to have been caused to
petitioner thereby, for the very merit
of the union complaint is borne out by
the fact that the parties promptly
arrived at a satisfactory settlement
thereof upon petitioner's undertaking
to pay retirement gratuity to all 86
affected employees.
2. No. As the petitioner has in no
manner questioned or disputed the
factual bases and findings of CIR as to
its undertaking and agreement in the
record to pay the retirement gratuity
to the employees, by way of
settlement of their dispute arising
from the protested abrupt termination
of their employment with the sudden
sale of the Pines Hotel to a third party,
the court acted within its jurisdiction
when
it
properly
assumed
of
implementing the very agreement and
settlement for payment of retirement
gratuity arrived at by the parties in
the case before it.