Naguiat/Clark Field Taxi vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 116123 March 13, 1997
CFTI under the management of Sergio Naguiat, a co-owner of the corporation operated a taxi business within the Clark Airfield. Due to the phase out of the US Military bases in the Philippines, taxi operation ceased and reasoned great financial losses and lost business opportunity. Private respondents claimed that CFTI and Sergio F. Naguiat be joined as indispensable party whose liability is joint and several.
Whether or not Naguiat Enterprise is solidarily liable for the obligation of CFTI to its terminated taxi drivers.
The labor arbiter found that individual respondents were regular employees of CFTI who received wages on a boundary or commission basis. Labor-only contracting exist where 1) the person workers to an employer does not have substantial capital investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery and work premises among others; and 2) the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of employer. There was no substantial basis to hold that Naguiat Enterprise is an indirect employer of individual respondents much less labor only contractor.
UST Faculty union vs. Bitonio, BLR/Mariño
GRN 131235 November 16, 1999
Private respondent Mariño et al are duly elected officer of UST faculty. The union has a 5-year CBA with its employer and is set to expire on May 31,1998. On September 21, 1996, Sec Gen of the union posted a general assembly announcement to be held on October 5, 1996. Various UST club presidents requested a general faculty assembly thus union and non-union faculty members convened. New set of officers were elected, violative of the CBL and that GA was held with the attendance of non-union members. Current union officers were served with a notice to vacate the union office as new set of offices were already elected. CBA was likewise ratified by an overwhelming majority. Mad-Arbiter declared the election conducted was violative of the union’s CBL. BLR Director Bitonio upheld the decision with a ruling that the CBL which constituted the covenant between the union and its members, could not be suspended during the general assembly of all faculty members, since it had not been authorized by the union.
Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to recognize the officers “elected” during the general assembly.
Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution and labor Code. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must not only signify the intent to become one but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union’s CBL. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with the new status and becomes bound by the union’s rules and regulations.
v Union election – hold pursuant to the union’s CBL, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members.
v Certification election – is the process of determining, thorough secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining the purpose to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and by which particular labor organization.
Jardin vs. NLRC
GRN 119268 February 23, 2000
Petitioners were drivers of Goodman Taxi and were collected an average of P400 as boundary plus 30 pesos for car wash fee. The drivers heard that Goodman management would raise the car wash fee and the latter planned to form a union. Upon learning of their plan, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicab for few days. Petitioners filed illegal dismissal and illegal collection wash fee. LA dismissed the complaint NLRC reversed the decision ratiocinating that as employees, their dismissal must be for just cause and after due process. 2nd motion, decision again reversed.
whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.
Complainants are taxi drivers on boundary system but in determining if employer-employee relationship exists, the four-fold test is applied: power of selection of employees; payment of wages; power of dismissal; and power to control the employees. Petitioners are undoubtedly employees of the respondent because taxi drivers perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer. Thus an employee illegally dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed at the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time his actual reinstatement.
- Prior to March 21, 1989, employees illegally dismissed are entitled to backwages up to 3 years without deduction or qualification.
- After RA 6715, granted full backwages of allowances & other benefits…
FULL BACKWAGES – without deducting from backwages the earnings derived elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissed.
Kiokloy vs. NLRC
GRN L 54334 January 22, 1986
Whether or not company committed unfair labor practice.
Collective bargaining which is defined as a negotiation towards collective agreement, is designed to established the relationship of labor and management, and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial peace.
The company is guilty of ULP since it has been established that
1.) Respondent was a duly certified bargaining agent;
2.) It made a definite request to bargain;
3.) The Company made no counter proposal which conclusively indicate lack of sincere desire to negotiate.
Even during the compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, company’s approach and attitude stalling the negotiation by a series of postponement, non appearance at a hearing conducted and undue delay in submitting in its financial statement, lead to no other conclusion except that it is unwilling to negotiate and reach an agreement with the union.
As laid down in the Herald Delivery case, “ULP is committed when it is shown that the respondent employer, after having proposed by union, did not even bother to submit an answer or reply.”
Employee Representation Meralco vs. Quisumbing
GRN 127 598 January 27, 1999
The court directed the parties to execute of CBA incorporating the terms among which are the following modifications:
Wages; P 1,900 for 1995-96
Retroactibility: December 28, 1996- December 27, 1999
Dissatified, some members of the union filed a motion for intervention/reconsideration. Petitioner warns that if the wage increase of P 2, 200 per month as ordered is allowed, it would pass the cost covering such increase to the consumer through an increase rate of electricity. On the retroactivity of the CBA arbitral award, the parties reckon the period as when retraction shall commence.
Whether or not retroacting of arbitral awards shall commence at such time as granted by Secretary.
In St. Luki’s Medical vs. Torres, a deadlock developed during CBA negotiations between management unions. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and ordered the retroaction of the CBA to the date of expiration of the previous CBA. The Court rationale thus: In the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactive of the affectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary pursuant to Art. 263 (9) of the Labor Code, public respondent is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof.
In general, a CBA negotiated within six months after the expiration of the existing CBA retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter, the affectivity depends on the agreement of the parties. On the other hand the law is silent as to the retroactivity of a CBA arbitral award or that granted not by virtue of the mutual agreement but by intervention of the government. In the absence of the CBA, the Secretary’s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionary powers over arbitral awards shall control.
Whereof, the arbitral award shall retroact from December 1, 1995 to November 3, 1997: and the award of wage is increased from 1900 to P 2,000.00.
On February 6, 1974, respondent Philippines Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Liberty Flour entered into a 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a daily wage increase of P2 for 1974 P1 for 1975 and P1 for 1976. The parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing “membership in good standing for the duration of CBA” as a condition for continued employment of workers: PLAC 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 4 1975 this time by petitioners who apparently were wearing away from PLAC. Evarists and Biascon, after organizing a union filed for a certification election among rank- and file employees. PLAC them impelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal by the responded company, who compelled on May 20, 1975. The claims for E- COLa was dismissed as it was already absorbed by the wage increase. The termination case in relation to back wages was also dismissed.
Whether or not E-cola was absorbed in the wage increased and won dismissal of Evaristo and Biascon was illegal.
The company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before the obligation was imposed by the government (P.D 525). What the petitioner claim there is being made to waive the additional allowances but the truth is they are not entitled to because they are already enjoying the stipulated increase.As with the case of illegal dismissed the CBA concurred on 1974 was certifiable and in fact certified in April 11, 1975 while the two were dismissed on May 20, 1975. Evidence show that after the cancellation of the registration certificate of the federation of Democratic Labor Unions. No other union contested the exclusive representation of the PLAC. Consequently there was no more legal impediment that stood on the way of its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between Respondent Corporation and Respondent Corporation and respondent union once it was dully entered into a signed by the parties a collective bargaining agreement becomes effective as between the parties regardless of won the same has been certified by BLR.