Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2


OF LABOR (2005)
Petition for review of a decision of the CA and the resolution denying
reconsideration thereof.
CB Negotiations between pet UIC and respondent UIC Union. The Union
submitted collective bargaining proposals to UIC. However, 1 item was left
unresolved, which was the inclusion or exclusion of the ff. positions in the scope
of the bargaining unit:
o Secretaries
o Registrars
o Accounting Personnel
o Guidance Counselors
Matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration; panel of VAs rendered a decision
excluding 1, 2, chief of accounting dept, cashiers, and 4 from and including
accounting clerks and accounting staff members in the agreement.
Union filed MR. Pending the resolution of the motion, it filed a notice of strike with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, on the grounds of bargaining
deadlock and unfair labor practice. During the 30 day cooling off period, 2 union
members were dismissed by UIC. Consequently, Union went on strike.
SoL Confessor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute:
o Ordered workers to return to work within 24 hours upon receipt of order
and management to accept them back under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to strike
o Directed to submit respective position papers within 10 days from receipt
Panel of Vas denied the MR filed by the Union. UIC then furnished copies of the
denial of the MR to the individual resps.
Thereafter, UIC gave the individual resps 2 choices:
o Resign from the Union and remain employed as confidential employees
o Resign from their confidential positions and remain members of the Union
The resps remained steadfast in their claim that they could retain both, and so
UIC sent them notices of termination.
Union thereafter filed another notice of strike, this time citing as a reason the
termination of the individual resps.
SoL reiterated the directives it made, and suspended the effects of the
termination of the individual resps pending determination of the legality thereof.
UIC was directed to reinstate the individual resps. Under same terms and
UIC filed an MR: the order would render nugatory the vinding of the Vas to
exclude them from the CBU. MR was denied; SoL said the finding did not
authorize the UIC to terminate their employment. UIC filed 2nd MR, which was
denied again. UIC filed 3rd MR, which was again denied, with modification:
o Payroll reinstatement only for individual resps
UIC filed pet for certiorari with the SC; petition was referred back to CA as per St.
Martin Funeral Homes
CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
UIC moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied. Hence, the instant petition.

WoN the CA cmmited GAD in affirming the orders of the SoL that suspended the
effects of the termination of 12 employees who were not part of the bargaining
unit involved in a labor dispute over which the SoL assumed jurisdictiono CA: The authority to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispure must
include all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases
over which the LA has exclusive jurisdiction.
o UIC: The SoL cannot take cognizance of an issue involving employees
who are not part of the bargaining unit.
o SC: While the court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives
and it often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of
the employer, such privilege is not absolute, but subject to exceptions.
o One of which is: when the SoL assumes jurisdiction over labor disputes
involving industries indispensable to natl intest
o So when the SoL ordered UIC to suspend the effects of termination of the
resps, the SoL did not exceed her jurisdiction, nor did the SoL gravely
abuse the same. One of the evils Art. 263g of the LC seeks to curb is the
exacerbation of a labor dispute to the further detriment of the national
o The act of UIC dismissing the resps became the impetus for the Union to
declare a 2nd notice of strike. Any act committed during the pendency of
the dispute that tends to give rise to further contentious issues or increase
the tensions between the parties should be considered an act of
exacerbation and should not be allowed.
o As regards the issue of the payroll reinstatement, such is usually not
allowed, except when there are special circumstances that render actual
reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the
purposes of the law.
o Final decision of the panel as to the confidential nature of the positions of
the 12 private resps: valid superseding circumstance warranting payroll
CA decision affirmed