2016-2017 Labor Jurisprudence related to Labor Unions

CASE TITLE RULING

1. HSBC *A strike staged without compliance with the requirements
Employees of Article 263 of the Labor Code is illegal, and may cause
the termination of the employment of the participating
Union vs. NLRC
union officers and members.
GR # 156635; *However, the liability for the illegal strike is individual,
January 11, not collective.
2016 *To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor
organization on that basis, the employer must show that
the officer knowingly participated in the illegal
strike.
*An ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated
based solely on his participation in the illegal strike, for
the employer must further show that the employee
committed illegal acts during the strike.
2. Mendoza vs. *As members of the governing board of MWEU,
Officers of respondents are presumed to know, observe, and apply
the unions constitution and by-laws. Thus, their repeated
Manila Water
violations thereof and their disregard of petitioners rights
Employees as a union member their inaction on his two appeals
Union (MWEU) which resulted in his suspension, disqualification from
GR # 201595; running as MWEU officer, and subsequent expulsion
January 25, without being accorded the full benefits of due process
2016 connote willfulness and bad faith, a gross disregard of his
rights thus causing untold suffering, oppression and,
ultimately, ostracism from MWEU.
3. Yellow Bus *Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that one of the
Line just causes for terminating an employment is the
employee's gross and habitual neglect of his duties. This
Employees
cause includes gross inefficiency, negligence and
Union (YBLEU) carelessness. Gross negligence connotes want or absence
vs. Yellow Bus of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the
Lines, Inc. entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard
(YBLI) of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
GR # 190876; them.
June 15, 2016 *While a hearing was conducted where the two employees
were given
1
Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo, RNLabor Law ReviewLabor Arbiter Natividad Roma
2016-2017 List of SC-decided cases related to Labor Unions
 an opportunity to air their side, there was only one notice
given to the erring
drivers. That same notice included both the charges for
negligence and the
decision of dismissal from employment. Evidently, the two
employees'
rights to due process were violated which warrants their
entitlement to
indemnity.
4. Cagayan *Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as amended, labor-
Electric Power only
contracting is an arrangement where the contractor, who
& Light
does not have
Company, Inc. substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
(CELPALCO), et equipment, machineries, work p:(emises, among others,
al. vs. CEPALC supplies workers to an employer and the workers recruited
O Employee's are performing activities which are directly related to the
Labor Union- principal business of such employer.
Associated
*Labor-only contracting is considered as a form of ULP
Labor Unions-
when the same
Trade Union is devised by the employer to "interfere with, restrain or
Congress of coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
the Philippines organization."
(TUCP)
GR #
211015/2138
35;
June 20, 2016
5. Peninsula *The recognized collective bargaining union which successfully
negotiated the CBA with the employer is given the right to
Employees
collect a
Union (PEU) vs. reasonable fee called "agency fee" from non-union members
Esquivel et. al. who are
GR # 218454; employees of the appropriate bargaining unit, in an amount
December 1, equivalent to the
dues and other fees paid by union members, in case they
2016 accept the benefits
under the CBA. While the collection of agency fees is
2
Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo, RNLabor Law ReviewLabor Arbiter Natividad Roma
2016-2017 List of SC-decided cases related to Labor Unions
 recognized by
Article 259 (formerly Article 248) of the Labor Code, as
amended, the
legal basis of the union's right to agency fees is neither
contractual nor
statutory, but quasi-contractual, deriving from the established
principle that
non-union employees may not unjustly enrich themselves by
benefiting from employment conditions negotiated by the
bargaining union.

*Case law interpreting Article 250 (n) and (o) (formerly Article
241) of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates the
submission of three (3) documentary requisites in order to
justify a valid levy of increased union dues. These are: (a) an
authorization by a written resolution of the majority of all the
members at the general membership meeting duly called for
the purpose; (b) the secretary's record of the minutes of the
meeting, which shall include the list of all members present,
the votes cast, the purpose of the special assessment or fees
and the recipient of such assessment or fees; and (c)
individual written authorizations for check-off duly signed by
the employees concerned.

*So far, there are no union-related cases for January and February
2017 as per my search in law-related websites.

3
Rommelito Francisco E. Macarayo, RNLabor Law ReviewLabor Arbiter Natividad Roma
2016-2017 List of SC-decided cases related to Labor Unions