Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
Dabuet vs Roche
1. Petitioners were officers of Roche Products Labor Union and with whome the
company had a CBA due for re-negotiation that month, wrote the respondent
company expressing grievances of union and seeking formal conference with
management regarding the previous dismissal of union President and VP.
However, instead of discussing the problems, Mr. Mentha, the companys general
manager allegedly berated the petitioners for writing said letter and call the
person who prepared it Stupid
2. Counsel for labor union filed a case of grave slander against Mr. Mentha
3. Respondent company construed the execution by petitioners of the affidavit as an
act of breach of trust and confidence for which they were suspended.
4. Petitioners filed an opposition thereto and also filed charges of ULP, union
busting harassment against the company.
5. Compulsory labor arbiter found that petitioners dismissal was without
justifiable cause but there was no ULP committed.
6. The office of the president rendered a decision finding the respondents guilty of
ULP.
Issue: WON respondent company committed ULP?
Ruling:
Yes, the letter written by and for the union addressed to management referred to
employee grievances and labor management issues, then seeking a renegotiation of the
CBA, a fact which respondent company does not deny and all the more be a recognition
of such letter as an act for the mutual aid, protection and benefit of the employees
concerened.
Respondent companys act amounted to interference with restraint or coercion of the
petitioners exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection.
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
employer may be guilty of ULP in interfering with the right to self-organization even
before the union has been registered.
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
petitioners to do so, the exercise of which was their sole prerogative and in which
management may not interfere. It is not only an act of arrogance but a brazen
interference as well with the employees right to self-organization.
Facts:
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
No evidence was submitted to show the corporations alleged business losses. The
closure of the corporation was a mere subterfuge, a systematic approach intended to
dampen the enthusiasm of union members. Notwithstanding the petition for CE filed
by respondent and despite the knowledge of its pendency, the petitioner recognized a
new formed union and hastily signed with it an alleged CBA, their preference for the
new union was the expense of respondent union. An employer could be held guilty of
discrimination even if the preferred union was not company-dominated.
To constitute an ULP, the dismissal need not entirely and exclusively motivated by the
unions activities/affiliations, it is enough that the discrimination was a contributing
factor.
Bataan Shipyard vs NLRC
Facts:
1. Private Respondent NAFLY is a labor organization registered with DOLE. The
company filed with NLRC an application for retrenchment of 285 of its
employees on the ground that the firm had been incurring heavy losses. Some
employees who had been on sick leave earlier were considered retrenched and all
of those retrenched happen to be officers and members of NAFLU.
2. Executive labor arbiter declared the retrenchment as legal and valid. The
company however discriminated against the members of the NAFLU in the
selection of the employees to be retrenched and was found guilty of ULP.
Issue: WON the respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion in finding
the firm guilty of having committed an act of ULP while thee retrenchment it had
sought was held to be legal and valid?
Ruling:
Petition devoid of merit.
It is not disputed that the retrenchment is valid. However, the manner in which this
prerogative is exercised should not be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It should
not be oppressive and abusive since it affects ones person and property. The action
taken by the firm in retrenching employees who are members of NAFLY becomes highly
suspect. It lead us to conclude that the firm had been discrimination against
membership in NAFLU, an act which amount to interference in the employees exercise
of their right of self-organization.
B e r n a d e t h Ya b o n
Mabeza vs NLRC
Facts:
1. Petitioner contends that around the first week of May, she and her co-employees
were asked by the hotels management to sign an instrument attesting the
companys compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision.
2. Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go the City Prosecutors Office to
swear to the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management.
3. As she refused to proceed, petitioner avers that she was ordered to turn over the
keys to her living quarters and remove her belongings from hotel premises.
When she attempted to return to work, the hotels cashier informed her that she
should not report to work and continue with her unofficial leave of absence.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
5. Private Respondent alleged that petitioner actually abandoned her work and
surreptitiously left without notice to the management.
6. Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioners complaint on the ground of loss of
confidence, NLRC affirmed the labor arbiters devcision.
Issue: WON the termination constitutes an ULP?
Ruling:
Without doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that
the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not,
together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the
employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The first act clearly preempts the
right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through
concerted action. or refusing to cooperate with the private respondent's scheme,
petitioner was obviously held up as an example to all of the hotel's employees, that they
could only cause trouble to management at great personal inconvenience. Implicit in
the act of petitioner's termination and the subsequent filing of charges against her was
the warning that they would not only be deprived of their means of livelihood, but also
possibly, their personal liberty.