Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-4 211 217 Case Title / Issue San Miguel Ees Union vs. Bersamira (1990) (WON respondent Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the present controversy and properly issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction) (WON the case at bar involves, or is in connection with, or relates to a labor dispute) Facts Union: Lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction that to the Union is outside the courts jurisdiction, i.e., within the province of labor tribunals SanMig: There is no Er-Ee relationship; Union cannot bargain for contractual Ees, ie., against CBA Complaining employees are contractual employees (i.e., Lipercon and DRite), says in their E-contract that there shall be no Er-Ee relationship; Worked with SMC for 6 months to 15 years Complaining Ees were absorbed by the Union, goal: their regularization Ees; 1st notice of strike: ULP, CBA violations, & union busting Ees 2nd notice of strike: ULP Conciliatory meetings NCMB Series of pickets Respondent Court: No Er-Ee relationship, issued injuction, i.e., SMC to incur irreparable damages Ruling/Ratio No and Yes, respectively. Ratio: A labor dispute can nevertheless exist regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee. Ratio: the existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. Rule: Labor dispute - "any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." (Art. 212(1), LC) - Case Facts: aim is to the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite (i.e., terms and conditions of employment); matter of representation - Conclusion: Controversy is a labor dispute. Layno vs. de la Cruz (1965) is not controlling - Facts: its members be hired as stevedores in the place of the members of a rival union not a labor dispute. As to jurisdiction, Rule: Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers including "1. unfair labor practice cases; 2. those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; ... and 5. cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of striker and lockouts. ..." - Conclusion: Labor arbiter has jurisdiction As to jurisdiction, SMC proposition: regular Courts for damages under Arts. 19, 20 & 21 - Conclusion: claim for damages is interwoven with a labor dispute existing between the parties and would have to be ventilated before the administrative machinery established for the expeditious settlement of those disputes - Implication: to rule otherwise will result to split jurisdiction, obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice