Labor Relations

LABOR 2 DISINI NOTES (PART 2: LABOR RELATIONS LAW) 1
MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010

LABOR RELATIONS LAW

PRELIMINARIES: CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Arti cl e 2, Secti on 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their
welfare.

Arti cl e 3, Secti on 8. The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Arti cl e 13, Secti on 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local
and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment
and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security
of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to
expansion and growth.

WHAT DOES THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
SPELL OUT?
The State shall:
1. Afford full protection to labor
a. Local and overseas
b. Organized and unorganized
2. Promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all
3. It shall guarantee the rights of ALL workers to the following:
a. Labor Relations
i. Self-organization
ii. Collective bargaining and negotiations
iii. Peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law
b. Labor Standards
i. Security of tenure
ii. Humane conditions of work
iii. Living wage
c. Others
i. Participation in policy and decision making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law
4. Promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers
5. Promote the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace
6. Regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of
investments, and to expansion and growth

STATUTORY BASIS

ART. 211. Decl arati on of Pol i cy. - A. It is the policy of the State:
LABOR 2 DISINI NOTES (PART 2: LABOR RELATIONS) 2


(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining
and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and
conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes;

(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement
of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development;

(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united
labor movement;

(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and
obligations as union members and as employees;

(e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious
settlement of labor or industrial disputes;

(f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and

(g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making
processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations
between the employers and employees by means of agreements freely
entered into through collective bargaining, no court or administrative
agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay,
hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as
otherwise provided under this Code. (As amended by Section 3, Republic
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

ART. 212. Def i ni ti ons. - (a) "Commission" means the National Labor
Relations Commission or any of its divisions, as the case may be, as
provided under this Code.

(b) "Bureau" means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or the Labor
Relations Divisions in the regional offices established under Presidential
Decree No. 1, in the Department of Labor.

(c) "Board" means the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
established under Executive Order No. 126.

(d) "Council" means the Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council
established under Executive Order No. 126, as amended.

(e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer,
directly or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or
any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer.

(f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term
shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the
Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has
ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or
because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other
substantially equivalent and regular employment.

(g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of employees
which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or
of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment.

(h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor organization duly
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes
any branch or local thereof.

(i) "Company union" means any labor organization whose formation,
function or administration has been assisted by any act defined as unfair
labor practice by this Code.

(j) "Bargaining representative" means a legitimate labor organization
whether or not employed by the employer.

(k) "Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice as expressly
defined by the Code.

(l) "Labor dispute" includes 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.


(m) "Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees.
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use
of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above
definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book.

(n) "Voluntary Arbitrator" means any person accredited by the Board as
such or any person named or designated in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement by the parties to act as their Voluntary Arbitrator, or one
chosen with or without the assistance of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board, pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any official that may be authorized by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment to act as Voluntary Arbitrator
upon the written request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute.

(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action
of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

(p) "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work
as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

(q) "Internal union dispute" includes all disputes or grievances arising from
any violation of or disagreement over any provision of the constitution and
by laws of a union, including any violation of the rights and conditions of
union membership provided for in this Code.

(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs, impedes, or
interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any
peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the
exercise of the right of self-organization or collective bargaining.

(s) "Strike area" means the establishment, warehouses, depots, plants or
offices, including the sites or premises used as runaway shops, of the
employer struck against, as well as the immediate vicinity actually used by
picketing strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance to and
exit from said establishment. (As amended by Section 4, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989).

PRESENT LABOR RELATIONS POLICY

METHODS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, ARTICLE 211 (a)(b)
To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration,
mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial
disputes
To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the
enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice
and development

RATIONALE FOR VOLUNTARY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
Labor relations are characterized by its inter-party nature. It is
due to this inter-party nature that voluntary settlement is
preferred.
Labor relations encourage a truly democratic method of regulating
the relations between the employers and employees by means of
agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining
Free agreement among the parties is the general rule while
government intervention is the exception.
Note: there is symmetry in the law with respect to Article 211
A(a) with respect to B(b)



MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION V. CA
447 SCRA 97 (2004)
The petitioner filed for certification election so that it may be
declared as the sole bargaining representative of the employees
but its petition was denied. It then wrote to the management,
asking the latter to engage with it in collective bargaining
negotiations. The human resources department notified them that
it couldnt be done because of the results of the certification
election. The petitioner replied that they are not giving a notice to
bargain but merely asking the hotel to bargain with them to the
exclusion of the other rank-and-file employees. The union then
took a strike vote and despite deliberations with the NCMB, staged
a strike. The hotel alleging that the same was illegal, it dismissed
some of the employees involved. The Secretary then assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered the employees to return
to work. The hotel refused to accept the employees and moved for
reconsideration. Thereafter, the Secretary issued an order,
ordering that the employees be reinstated in the payroll without
having to actually returning to work.

HELD:
The State encourages an environment wherein employers and employees
themselves must deal with their problems in a manner that mutually suits
best. A voluntary, instead of compulsory, mode of dispute is the general
rule.

In the present case, there is no showing that the facts called for payroll
reinstatement as an alternative remedy. A strained relationship between
the striking employees and management is no reason for payroll
reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement. Petitioner correctly points
out that labor disputes naturally involve strained relations between labor
and management, and that in most strikes, the relations between the
strikers and the non-strikers will similarly be tense. Bitter labor disputes
always leave an aftermath of strong emotions and unpleasant situations.
Nevertheless, the government must still perform its function and apply the
law, especially if, as in this case, national interest is involved.

Compared to the ci ted case of UST v. NLRC
There, the Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute between
striking teachers and the university. He ordered the striking teachers to
return to work and the university to accept them under the same terms
and conditions. However, in a subsequent order, the NLRC provided payroll
reinstatement for the striking teachers as an alternative remedy to actual
reinstatement. It is noted however that the UST ruling was made in the
light of one very important fact: the teachers could not be given back their
academic assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return
to work was given in the middle of the first semester of the academic year.
The NLRC was, therefore, faced with a situation where the striking teachers
were entitled to a return to work order, but the university could not
immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and
detrimental to the students to change teachers at that point in time.

TRADE UNIONISM, ARTICLE 211 (b)(c)
Article 211 (A)
Goal of both (A) and (B) is the
attainment of industrial peace
State policies: promote and
emphasize the primacy of free
collective bargaining and
negotiations
Voluntary settlement|interparty
character of labor relations
Real and lasting peace in the
industry not attainable through
compulsion (attained through
human experience)
Article 211 (B)
Exception to the rule: covers
situation which are normal as
well as those which are not
normal
The law is likewise realistic,
which recognizes that industrial
peace through voluntary means
is not always true
Rationale: there is public
interest involved when workers
and employers are
irreconcilable, as such, the
government should intervene
This provision likewise holds
the same state policy for the
furtherance of industrial peace
but follows a different
methodology
Nonetheless, an escape clause
is provided wherein parties may
resort back to voluntary means

(1) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the
enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice
and development
(2) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and
united labor movement;

WORKER ENLIGHTENMENT, ARTICLES 211 (d), 277 (a), 241 (p)
(1) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights
and obligations as union members and as employees;
(2) All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees,
union dues, assessments and fines and other contributions for
labor education and research, mutual death and hospitalization
benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and credit and cooperative
undertakings.
(3) It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to
inform its members on the provisions of its constitution and by-
laws, collective bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor
relations system and all their rights and obligations under existing
labor laws.

For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess
reasonable dues to finance labor relations seminars and other
labor education activities.

Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership
shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or
expulsion of officers from office, whichever is appropriate. At least
thirty percent (30%) of the members of a union or any member or
members specially concerned may report such violation to the
Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any
reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.

Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights
and conditions of membership shall continue to be under the
jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

VICTORIA V. INCIONG (1988)
Victoria was employed in Far East Broadcasting Company. He
later together with other employees organized an employees
union. They sought recognition from the company but the latter
maintained that they cannot as they are not under the scope of the
Industrial Peace Act. Despite conciliation efforts and advise by
the NCMB that they cannot be recognized as the broadcasting
company is not included in the Industrial Peace Act, they staged a
strike. This prompted the company to file for damages and
preliminary injunction. Petitioner was subsequently dismissed
from the company and he alleged that he was illegally dismissed
since prior clearance is needed from the Secretary before the
dismissal of employees or cessation of business.

HELD:
Technically speaking, no clearance was obtained by private respondent
from the then Secretary of Labor, the last step towards full compliance
with the requirements of law on the matter of dismissal of employees.
However, the rationale behind the clearance requirement was fully met.
The Secretary of Labor was apprised of private respondent's intention to
terminate the services of petitioner. This in effect is an application for
clearance to dismiss petitioner from employment. The affirmance of the
restrictive condition in the dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's decision
in NLRC Case Nos. 0021 and 0285 by the Secretary of Labor and the
Office of the President of the Philippines, signifies a grant of authority to
dismiss petitioner in case the strike is declared illegal by the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan. Consequently and as correctly stated by the Solicitor
General, private respondent acted in good faith when it terminated the
employment of petitioner upon a declaration of illegality of the strike by
the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Moreover, the then Secretary of
Labor manifested his conformity to the dismissal, not once, but twice. In
this regard, the mandatory rule on clearance need not be applied.

The strike staged by the union in 1972 was a futile move. The law then
enforced, Republic Act 875 specifically excluded respondent company
from its coverage. Even if the parties had gone to court to compel
recognition, no positive relief could have been obtained since the same was
not sanctioned by law. Because of this, there was no necessity on the part
of private respondent to show specific acts of petitioner during the strike to
justify his dismissal.

This is a matter of responsibility and of answerability. Petitioner as a union
leader, must see to it that the policies and activities of the union in the
conduct of labor relations are within the precepts of law and any deviation

from the legal boundaries shall be imputable to the leader. He bears the
responsibility of guiding the union along the path of law and to cause the
union to demand what is not legally demandable, would foment anarchy
which is a prelude to chaos.

Petitioner should have known and it was his duty to impart this imputed
knowledge to the members of the union that employees and laborers in
non- profit organizations are not covered by the provisions of the Industrial
Peace Act and the Court of Industrial Relations [in the case at bar, the
Court of First Instance] has no jurisdiction to entertain petitions of labor
unions or organizations of said non-profit organizations for certification as
the exclusive bargaining representatives of said employees and laborers.

MACHINERY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, ARTICLE 211 (e)
(a) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the
expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes;

ST. MARTINS FUNERAL HOMES V. NLRC
295 SCRA 494
Aricayos filed against petitioner a case for illegal dismissal. He
alleged that he was employed by the company as an operations
manager but he wasnt included in the payroll nor was there any
contract of employment. The company on the other hand, alleged
that he was merely accommodated by the previous owner of the
company as he was in dire need of financial assistance but when
records were checked, irregularities in accounts were discovered
and Aricayos was duly removed for misappropriating funds. The
labor arbiter ruled that there wasnt any employer-employee
relationship. The NLRC on appeal remanded to the arbiter the
case for further proceedings. Having its motion for
reconsideration denied, Aricayos filed a petition for certiorari to
the SC.

HELD:
All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed
appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby
declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the
Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of
courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.

DELTAVENTURES V. CABATO
327 SCRA 521
Respondent-employees filed a case of illegal dismissal against
their employer. The labor arbiter ruled in their favor and ruled for
the payment of backwages and reinstatement. The appeal being
denied, the employees sought the issuance of a writ of execution
to satisfy the judgment. The labor arbiter duly issued one but
seeing that there are not enough assets to satisfy claims, a levy
was made on one of the real properties. Before the auction sale
could happen, petitioner files a third-party complaint as it was
allegedly the owner of the property. The auction sale was
thereafter suspended. The petitioner then files a complaint with
the RTC, making the same allegations in its third-party claim,
praying as well for injunction and damages. The employees
sought the dismissal of the civil case and the court then ruled in
their favor, ruling that the petitioner cannot maintain the two
claims both at the same time.

HELD:
Petitioner failed to realize that by filing its third-party claim with the
deputy sheriff, it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Commission
acting through the Labor Arbiter. It failed to perceive the fact that what it
is really controverting is the decision of the Labor arbiter and not the act of
the deputy sheriff in executing said order issued as a consequence of said
decision rendered.

Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but
continues until the case is terminated.
23
Whatever irregularities attended
the issuance and execution of the alias writ of execution should be referred
to the same administrative tribunal which rendered the decision.
24
This is
because any court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power,
for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers
and to control its own processes.

The broad powers granted to the Labor Arbiter and to the National Labor
Relations Commission by Articles 217, 218 and 224 of the Labor Code can
only be interpreted as vesting in them jurisdiction over incidents arising
from, in connection with or relating to labor disputes, as the controversy
under consideration, to the exclusion of the regular courts.


Having established that jurisdiction over the case rests with the
Commission, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent Judge Cabato in denying petitioner's motion for the issuance of
an injunction against the execution of the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission.

Moreover, it must be noted that the Labor Code in Article 254 explicitly
prohibits issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction or restraining
order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes by any court or
other entity (except as otherwise provided in Arts. 218 and 264). As
correctly observed by court a quo, the main issue and the subject of the
amended complaint for injunction are questions interwoven with the
execution of the Commission's decision. No doubt the aforecited
prohibition in Article 254 is applicable.

Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the Labor Arbiter,
from whom the writ of execution originated, before instituting said civil
case. The NLRC's Manual on Execution of Judgment,

issued pursuant to
Article 218 of the Labor Code, provides the mechanism for a third-party
claimant to assert his claim over a property levied upon by the sheriff
pursuant to an order or decision of the Commission or of the Labor Arbiter.
The power of the Labor Arbiter to issue a writ of execution carries with it
the power to inquire into the correctness of the execution of his decision
and to consider whatever supervening events might transpire during such
execution.

INDUSTRIAL PEACE, ARTICLE 211 (f), 273
To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace
Note that industrial peace remains to be aspirational

PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND DECISION MAKING, in addition to the
constitutional provision is ARTICLE 211 (g)
To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-
making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

WAGE-FIXING, ARTICLE 211(B), 99, 124
To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the
relations between the employers and employees by means of
agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no
court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to
set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and
conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under
this Code.
The minimum wage rates for agricultural and non-agricultural
employees and workers in each and every region of the country
shall be those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards.
The regional minimum wages to be established by the Regional
Board shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to
maintain the minimum standards of living necessary for the
health, efficiency and general well-being of the employees within
the framework of the national economic and social development
program. In the determination of such regional minimum wages,
the Regional Board shall, among other relevant factors, consider
the following:
o The demand for living wages;
o Wage adjustment vis--vis the consumer price index;
o The cost of living and changes or increases therein;
o The needs of workers and their families;
o The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside;
o Improvements in standards of living;
o The prevailing wage levels;
o Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of
employers;
o Effects on employment generation and family income; and
o The equitable distribution of income and wealth along the
imperatives of economic and social development.

LABOR INJUNCTION, ARTICLES 254, 263 (g), 218
General rule: Injunction prohibited. - No temporary or permanent
injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out
of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity,
except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code.
Exceptions to the rule
o When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable
to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute
and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for

compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification
shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the
assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
place at the time of assumption or certification, all
striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-
to-work and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under the same terms
and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission
may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such
orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
o To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of
any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the
performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if
not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary
or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing
out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be
issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses,
with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the
allegations of a complaint made under oath, and
testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a
finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect:

POINTERS FOR LIMITED INJUNCTION
(a) If there is a labor dispute
(b) By the NLRC
(c) Following certain requirements

RATIONALE FOR LIMITED INJUNCTION
It is because that injunction shouldnt be use to circumvent labor
law
Experience shows that when injunction is issued, the scale is tilted
more in favor of the party for whom the injunction was issued

TRIPARTISM, ARTICLE 275
Tripartism in labor relations is hereby declared a State policy.
Towards this end, workers and employers shall, as far as
practicable, be represented in decision and policy-making bodies
of the government.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representatives may, from time to time, call a national, regional,
or industrial tripartite conference of representatives of
government, workers and employers for the consideration and
adoption of voluntary codes of principles designed to promote
industrial peace based on social justice or to align labor
movement relations with established priorities in economic and
social development. In calling such conference, the Secretary of
Labor and Employment may consult with accredited
representatives of workers and employers.

RATIONALE BEHIND TRIPARTISM AND WORKER PARTICIPATION
The belief that a party who participates in the culmination of a
policy has greater assurance of effectiveness of the policy and its
success
However, if we look at the law, a fence was built around the law
in matters that affects of rights and welfarebut can the whole
gamut of rights and welfare be catalogued?
This fence prompts some questions likecan an employee veto
any policy drafted by the company or management? In PAL v.
NLRC, it was held that the right exists but the employee doesnt
have the veto power.
It just means that the right is qualified and is not absolute. The
right only exists for those affecting their rights and welfare.
Nonetheless, they dont have the power to veto.



RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS OF RIGHT

Arti cl e 3, Secti on 8. The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Arti cl e 13, Secti on 3.
xxx It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law. xxx

ART. 243. Coverage and empl oyees ri ght to sel f -organi zati on. - All
persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises
and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational institutions, whether
operating for profit or not, shall have the right to self-organization and to
form, join, or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes
of collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant workers, self-
employed people, rural workers and those without any definite employers
may form labor organizations for their mutual aid and protection. (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980).

FLOW PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 243 WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION
(a) General statement of the right enshrined in the Constitution
(b) How it will operate
(c) Restrictions as to its applicability

CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES FOUND IN THE PROVISION OF THE
LABOR CODE
(1) Managerial employees
(2) Supervisory employees
(3) Rank-and-file employees

DOES THE PROVISION OF THE LABOR CODE VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS? IS THE CLASSIFICATION VALID?
No, it is not a violation
In answering this, on the onset, begin with the assumption that the
restrictions are valid
The law, in interpreting the law, saw the purpose of the
Constitution as well as it recognizes the different needs and
interests of supervisory and rank-and-file employees respectively
there might be conflict between the interests of the two classes of
employees
o Fast forward!there is conflict in areas of discipline as
well as economic interests and loyalty

ART. 244. Ri ght of empl oyees i n the publ i c servi ce. - Employees of
government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall
have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to
form associations for purposes not contrary to law. (As amended by
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).

ART. 245. Inel i gi bi l i ty of manageri al empl oyees to j oi n any l abor
organi zati on; ri ght of supervi sory empl oyees. - Managerial employees
are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own. (As amended by Section 18, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989).
Employers
Workers/
employees
Government


ART. 245-A. Ef f ect of i ncl usi on as members of empl oyees outsi de
the bargai ni ng uni t. The inclusion as union members of employees
outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the
registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed
removed from the list of membership of said union.

ART. 246. Non-abri dgment of ri ght to sel f -organi zati on. - It shall be
unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate against or unduly
interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of the right to self-
organization. Such right shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor
organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted
activities for the same purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject
to the provisions of Article 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980).

UST FACULTY UNION V. BITONIO
318 SCRA 186
Private respondents were officers of the USTFU. The recognized
union had a CBA with the school. The secretary-general on a
relevant date announced that there would be a general assembly
for the next election of union officers. The petitioners appealed
the same with the med-arbiter, alleging that the same was not in
accordance with the unions constitution and by-laws. The med-
arbiter issued a temporary restraining order, even so, the general
assembly still proceeded as scheduled. Members and non-
members alike attended the same and petitioners were elected as
officers. The private respondents then prayed for the nullification
of elections, being a violation of the temporary restraining order.
They likewise filed a motion to order petitioners to vacate the
union office. The med-arbiter ruled in their favor and this was
affirmed by the director.

HELD:
Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine
Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form, join or
assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining or for
their mutual aid and protection. Whether employed for a definite period or
not, any employee shall be considered as such, beginning on his first day
of service, for purposes of membership in a labor union.

Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a
labor union. Therefore, to become a uni on member, an empl oyee
must, as a rul e, not onl y si gni f y the i ntent to become one, but al so
take some posi ti ve steps to real i ze that i ntent. The procedure for
union membership is usually embodied in the union's constitution and
bylaws. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights
and the concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes
bound by the union's rules and regulations.

The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood in the
context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection
of Right to Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the
Convention provides that workers' organizations shall have the right to
draw up their constitution and rules and to elect their representatives in
full freedom, free from any interference from public authorities. The
freedom conferred by the provision is expansive; the responsibility
imposed on union members to respect the constitution and rules they
themselves draw up equally so. The poi nt to be stressed i s that the
uni on' s CBL i s the f undamental l aw that governs the rel ati onshi p
between and among the members of the uni on. It i s where the
ri ghts, duti es and obl i gati ons, powers, f uncti ons and authori ty of
the of f i cers as wel l as the members are def i ned. It i s the organi c
l aw that determi nes the val i di ty of acts done by any of f i cer or
member of the uni on. Wi thout respect f or the CBL, a uni on as a
democrati c i nsti tuti on degenerates i nto nothi ng more than a group
of i ndi vi dual s governed by mob rul e.

NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES V. MINISTER OF LABOR
110 SCRA 274
Exclusion of certain rank-and-file employees from the collective
bargaining unit. Allegedly, this is in violation of the right to self-
organization.

HELD:
The question therefore of excluding certain rank and file employees for
being allegedly confidential, managerial or technical does not simply
involve a definition of the bargaining unit but rather raises the fundamental

issue of coverage under or eligibility for the exercise of the workers' rights
to self-organization and collective bargaining. On this score, the law on
coverage and exclusion on the matter should by now be very clear. Article
244 of the Labor Code states that all persons employed in commercial,
industrial and agricultural enterprises, including religious, charitable,
medical or educational institutions operating for profit shall have the right
to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations for
purposes of collective bargaining. Articles 245 and 246 (ibid) provide that
security guards and managerial employees are not eligible to form, assist
or join any labor organization. As defined by the Code, a managerial
employee is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees, or to effectively
recommend such managerial actions. All employees not falling within this
definition are considered rank and file employees for purposes of self-
organization and collective bargaining.

It is in the light of the foregoing provisions of law that the challenged
order, in so far as it excludes all managerial and supervisory employees,
secretaries of bank officials, credit investigators, telephone operators, loan
security custodians, employees in the accounting, auditing, legal, trust and
personnel departments respectively, should be modified for being either
superfluous, discriminatory or simply contrary to law. The express
exclusion of managerial employees in the Order is superfluous for the
same is already provided for by law and is presumed when the bargaining
unit was defined as comprising all the regular rank and file employees of
the bank. It is also anomalous and discriminatory when it excluded
employees of the personnel department but included specific individuals
like Manuel Simibcay Primi Zamora and Carmelita Sy. Excl usi on as
manageri al empl oyee i s not based on the personal i ty of the
occupant but rather on the nature and f uncti on of the posi ti on. The
exclusion of the other positions is likewise contrary to law, there being no
clear showing that they are managerial employees. The mere fact of being
a supervisor or a confidential employee does not exclude him from
coverage. He must strictly come within the category of a managerial
employee as defined by the Code. The Constitution assures to all workers
such rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. Exclusions, being
the exception and being in derogation of such constitutional mandate,
should be construed in strictissimi juris.

Furthermore, to uphold the order of exclusion would be to allow the
emasculation of the workers' right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining, statutory rights which have received constitutional recognition
when they were enshrined in the 1973 Constitution. Indeed, the further
rulings that 'other non-confidential employees included in the bank's list of
proposed exclusion be allowed to vote but the votes should be segregated
as challenged and that in case of doubt as to whether or not the position
held by an employee is confidential in nature, the employee should be
allowed to vote but his vote should be segregated as challenged' both
complete the said order's self-nullifying effects.

At the most and indeed as a policy, exclusion of confidential employees
from the bargaining unit is a matter for negotiation and agreement of the
parties. Thus, the parties may agree in the CBA, to exclude certain highly
confidential positions from the bargaining unit. Absent such agreement,
coverage must be observed. In any event, any negotiation and agreement
can come after the representation issue is resolved and this is just the
situation in the instant case.

Uni versal Decl arati on of Human Ri ghts, arti cl e 2. Everyone is entitled
to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-
governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Arti cl e 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection
against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the
right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to
just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to
join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Internati onal Covenant on Economi c, Soci al and Cul tural Ri ghts,
arti cl e 2. 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take
steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation,

especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available
resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that
the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.

3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their
national economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the
economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.

Arti cl e 8.
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of
his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the
promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No
restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those
prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others;
(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or
confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international
trade-union organizations;
(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations
other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the
laws of the particular country.

2. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the
exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or
of the administration of the State.

3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International
Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative
measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such a manner as
would prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

Internati onal Covenant on Ci vi l and Pol i ti cal Ri ghts, arti cl e 22.
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than
those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety,
public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not
prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed
forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International
Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative
measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as
to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

ILO Conventi on No. 87: Freedom of Associ ati on and Protecti on of
the Ri ght to Organi zati on.

PART I. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Article 1
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this
Convention is in force undertakes to give effect to the following provisions.

Article 2
Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the
right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation
concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous
authorisation.

Article 3
1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up
their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom,
to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their

programmes.

2. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would
restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

Article 4
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or
suspended by administrative authority.

Article 5
Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to establish and
join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation
or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international
organisations of workers and employers.

Article 6
The provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof apply to federations and
confederations of workers' and employers' organisations.

Article 7
The acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers'
organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to
conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the
provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.

Article 8
1. In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and
employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or
organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.

2. The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so
applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

Article 9
1. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall
apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national
laws or regulations.

2. In accordance with the principle set forth in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of
the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation the ratification of
this Convention by any Member shall not be deemed to affect any existing
law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed
forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.

Article 10
In this Convention the term organi sati on means any organisation of
workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of
workers or of employers.

PART II. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE

Article 11
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this
Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate
measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the
right to organise.

PART III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Article 12
1.In respect of the territories referred to in Article 35 of the Constitution of
the International Labour Organisation as amended by the Constitution of
the International Labour Organisation Instrument of Amendment 1946,
other than the territories referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said
article as so amended, each Member of the Organisation which ratifies this
Convention shall communicate to the Director-General of the International
Labour Office with or as soon as possible after its ratification a declaration
stating:
a) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the
Convention shall be applied without modification;
b) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the
Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with details
of the said modifications;
c) the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in
such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;
d) the territories in respect of which it reserves its decision.

2. The undertakings referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph
1 of this Article shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification
and shall have the force of ratification.


3. Any Member may at any time by a subsequent declaration cancel in
whole or in part any reservations made in its original declaration in virtue
of subparagraphs (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.

4. Any Member may, at any time at which the Convention is subject to
denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 16, communicate
to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the
terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect
of such territories as it may specify.

Article 13
1. Where the subject-matter of this Convention is within the self-governing
powers of any non-metropolitan territory, the Member responsible for the
international relations of that territory may, in agreement with the
government of the territory, communicate to the Director-General of the
International Labour Office a declaration accepting on behalf of the
territory the obligations of this Convention.

2. A declaration accepting the obligations of this Convention may be
communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office:
a) by two or more Members of the Organisation in respect of any territory
which is under their joint authority; or
b) by any international authority responsible for the administration of any
territory, in virtue of the Charter of the United Nations or otherwise, in
respect of any such territory.

3. Declarations communicated to the Director-General of the International
Labour Office in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article
shall indicate whether the provisions of the Convention will be applied in
the territory concerned without modification or subject to modifications;
when the declaration indicates that the provisions of the Convention will be
applied subject to modifications it shall give details of the said
modifications.

4. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may at any
time by a subsequent declaration renounce in whole or in part the right to
have recourse to any modification indicated in any former declaration.

5. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may, at any
time at which this Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance
with the provisions of Article 16, communicate to the Director-General a
declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former
declaration and stating the present position in respect of the application of
the Convention.

ILO Conventi on No. 95: Ri ght to Organi ze and Col l ecti ve
Bargai ni ng Conventi on

Article 1
1. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union
discrimination in respect of their employment.

2. Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts
calculated to--
(a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall
not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership;
(b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of
union membership or because of participation in union activities outside
working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.

Article 2
1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection
against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or
members in their establishment, functioning or administration.

2. In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of
workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers'
organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other
means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of
employers or employers' organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts
of interference within the meaning of this Article.

Article 3
Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where
necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as
defined in the preceding Articles.

Article 4

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where
necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation
of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers'
organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of
terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.

Article 5
1. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall
apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national
laws or regulations.

2. In accordance with the principle set forth in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of
the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation the ratification of
this Convention by any Member shall not be deemed to affect any existing
law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed
forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.

Article 6
This Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged
in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing
their rights or status in any way.

Article 7
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the
Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 8
1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the
International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered
with the Director-General.

2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the
ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-
General.

3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve
months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.

Article 9
Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate --

a) the territories in respect of which the Member concerned undertakes
that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied without modification;

b) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the
Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with details
of the said modifications;

c) the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in
such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;

d) the territories in respect of which it reserves its decision pending further
consideration of the position.

2. The undertakings referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph
1 of this Article shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification
and shall have the force of ratification.

3. Any Member may at any time by a subsequent declaration cancel in
whole or in part any reservation made in its original declaration in virtue of
subparagraph (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.

4. Any Member may, at any time at which the Convention is subject to
denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, communicate
to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the
terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect
of such territories as it may specify.

Article 10
Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 of Article 35 of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate
whether the provisions of the Convention will be applied in the territory
concerned without modification or subject to modifications; when the
declaration indicates that the provisions of the Convention will be applied
subject to modifications, it shall give details of the said modifications.


2. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may at any
time by a subsequent declaration renounce in whole or in part the right to
have recourse to any modification indicated in any former declaration.

3. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may, at any
time at which this Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance
with the provisions of Article 11, communicate to the Director-General a
declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former
declaration and stating the present position in respect of the application of
the Convention.

Article 11
1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the
expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes
into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the
International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not
take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.

2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not,
within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation
provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years
and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each
period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.

Article 12
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all
Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all
ratifications, declarations and denunciations communicated to him by the
Members of the Organisation.

2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of
the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall
draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon
which the Convention will come into force.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V. CONFESSOR
432 SCRA 308

HELD:
Under the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO) No. 87
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE to which the Philippines is a signatory, "workers and employers,
without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and,
subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to job
organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization."

The aforcited ILO Conventions are incorporated in our Labor Code,
particularly in Article 243 thereof, which provides:

ART. 243. COVERAGE AND EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO SELF-
ORGANIZATION. All persons employed in commercial, industrial
and agricultural enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical
or educational institutions whether operating for profit or not,
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of
collective bargaining. Ambulant, intermittent and itinerant
workers, self-employed people, rural workers and those without
any definite employers may form labor organizations for their
mutual aid and protection.

and Articles 248 and 249 respecting ULP of employers and labor
organizations.

Parenthetically, if an employer interferes in the selection of its negotiators
or coerces the Union to exclude from its panel of negotiators a
representative of the Union, and if it can be inferred that the employer
adopted the said act to yield adverse effects on the free exercise to right to
self-organization or on the right to collective bargaining of the employees,
ULP under Article 248(a) in connection with Article 243 of the Labor Code
is committed.

EXTENT AND SCOPE OF RIGHT




PAN-AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS V. PAN-AMERICAN EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION
27 SCRA 1202
Refusal of the company to admit back to work the union officers
who resorted to a strike upon failure to come up with a concrete
agreement.

HELD:
The moment management displays what in this case appears to be grave
but unwarranted distrust in the union officials discharging their functions
just because a strike was resorted to, then the integrity of the collective
bargaining process itself is called into question. It would have been
different if there were a rational basis for such fears, purely speculative in
character. The record is bereft of slightest indication that any danger,
much less one clear and present, is to be expected from their return to
work. Necessarily, the union officials have the right to feel offended by the
fact that, while they will be paid their salaries in the meanwhile they would
not be considered as fit persons to perform the duties pertaining to the
positions held by them. Far from being generous such an offer could
rightfully, be considered insulting.

The greater offense is to the labor movement itself, more specifically to the
right of self-organization. There is both a constitutional and statutory
recognition that laborers have the right to form unions to take care of their
interests vis-a-vis their employers. Their freedom organizations would be
rendered nugatory if they could not choose their own leaders to speak on
their behalf and to bargain for them.

If petitioner were to succeed in their unprecedented demand, the laborers
in this particular union would thus be confronted with the sad spectacle of
the leaders of their choice condemned as irresponsible, possibly even
constituting a menace to the operations of the enterprise. That is an
indictment of the gravest character, devoid of any factual basis. What is
worse, the result, even if not intended, would be to call into question their
undeniable right to choose their leaders, who must be treated as such with
all the respect to which they are legitimately entitled. The fact that they
would be paid but not be allowed to work is, to repeat, to add to the
infamy that would thus attach to them necessarily, but to respondent
union equally.

Supra

WORKER QUALIFICATIONS

Arti cl e 277 (c). Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or
not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered as an
employee for purposes of membership in any labor union. (As amended by
Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715).

Supra

WORKERS WITH RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

ALL EMPLOYEES



Arti cl e 212. xxx (f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an
employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees of a particular
employer, unless the Code so explicitly states. It shall include any
individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any
current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not
obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.

VICTORIANO V. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS UNION
59 SCRA 54

HELD:
Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 875 recognize freedom of
association. Section 1 (6) of Article III of the Constitution of 1935, as well
as Section 7 of Article IV of the Constitution of 1973, provide that the right
to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not
be abridged. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875 provides that employees
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join of assist labor
organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. What the Constitution and
the Industrial Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the "right" to form or
join associations. Notwithstanding the different theories propounded by
the different schools of jurisprudence regarding the nature and contents of
a "right", it can be safely said that whatever theory one subscribes to, a
right comprehends at least two broad notions, namely: first, liberty or
freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act
for himself without being prevented by law; and second, power, whereby an
employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from Joining an association. It
is, therefore, the employee who should decide for himself whether he
should join or not an association; and should he choose to join, he himself
makes up his mind as to which association he would join; and even after
he has joined, he still retains the liberty and the power to leave and cancel
his membership with said organization at any time. It is clear, therefore,
that the right to join a union includes the right to abstain from joining any
union. Inasmuch as what both the Constitution and the Industrial Peace
Act have recognized, and guaranteed to the employee, is the "right" to join
associations of his choice, it would be absurd to say that the law also
imposes, in the same breath, upon the employee the duty to join
associations. The law does not enjoin an employee to sign up with any
association.

The right to refrain from joining labor organizations recognized by Section
3 of the Industrial Peace Act is, however, limited. The legal protection
granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn by operation of
law, where a labor union and an employer have agreed on a closed shop,
by virtue of which the employer may employ only member of the collective
bargaining union, and the employees must continue to be members of the
union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their jobs. Thus
Section 4 (a) (4) of the Industrial Peace Act, before its amendment by
Republic Act No. 3350, provides that although it would be an unfair labor
practice for an employer "to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization" the employer is,
however, not precluded "from making an agreement with a labor
organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein,
if such labor organization is the representative of the employees". By
virtue, therefore, of a closed shop agreement, before the enactment of
Republic Act No. 3350, if any person, regardless of his religious beliefs,
wishes to be employed or to keep his employment, he must become a
member of the collective bargaining union. Hence, the right of said
employee not to join the labor union is curtailed and withdrawn.

To that all-embracing coverage of the closed shop arrangement, Republic
Act No. 3350 introduced an exception, when it added to Section 4 (a) (4)
of the Industrial Peace Act the following proviso: " but such agreement
shal l not cover members of any rel i gi ous sects whi ch prohi bi t
af f i l i ati on of thei r members i n any such l abor organi zati on" .
Republ i c Act No. 3350 merel y excl udes i pso j ure f rom the
appl i cati on and coverage of the cl osed shop agreement the
empl oyees bel ongi ng to any rel i gi ous sects whi ch prohi bi t
af f i l i ati on of thei r members wi th any l abor organi zati on. What the
excepti on provi des, theref ore, i s that members of sai d rel i gi ous
sects cannot be compel l ed or coerced to j oi n l abor uni ons even
when sai d uni ons have cl osed shop agreements wi th the empl oyers;
that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious
sects cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the
sole ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining union.

It is clear, therefore, that the assailed Act, f ar f rom i nf ri ngi ng the
consti tuti onal provi si on on f reedom of associ ati on, uphol ds and
rei nf orces i t. It does not prohi bi t the members of sai d rel i gi ous
sects f rom af f i l i ati ng wi th l abor uni ons. It sti l l l eaves to sai d
members the l i berty and the power to af f i l i ate, or not to af f i l i ate,
wi th l abor uni ons. If, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members
of said religious sects prefer to sign up with the labor union, they can do
so. If in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to sign up,
they can do so; the law does not coerce them to join; neither does the law
prohibit them from joining; and neither may the employer or labor union
compel them to join. Republic Act No. 3350, therefore, does not violate the
constitutional provision on freedom of association.

KAPATIRAN SA MEAT AND CANNING DIVISION V. CALLEJA
162 SCRA 367

HELD:
After deliberating on the petition and the documents annexed thereto, We
find no merit in the Petition. The public respondent did not err in
dismissing the petitioner's appeal in BLR Case No. A-12-389-87. This
Court's decision in Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54,
upholding the right of members of the IGLESIA NI KRISTO sect not to join
a labor union for being contrary to their religious beliefs, does not bar the
members of that sect from forming their own union. The public respondent
correctly observed that the "recognition of the tenets of the sect ... should
not infringe on the basic right of self-organization granted by the
constitution to workers, regardless of religious affiliation."

The fact that TUPAS was able to negotiate a new CBA with ROBINA within
the 60-day freedom period of the existing CBA, does not foreclose the right
of the rival union, NEW ULO, to challenge TUPAS' claim to majority status,
by filing a timely petition for certification election on October 13, 1987
before TUPAS' old CBA expired on November 15, 1987 and before it
signed a new CBA with the company on December 3, 1987. As pointed out
by Med-Arbiter Abdullah, a "certification election is the best forum in
ascertaining the majority status of the contending unions wherein the
workers themselves can freely choose their bargaining representative thru
secret ballot." Since it has not been shown that this order is tainted with
unfairness, this Court will not thwart the holding of a certification election.

GOVERNMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

ART. 244. Ri ght of empl oyees i n the publ i c servi ce. - Employees of
government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall
have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective
employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to
form associations for purposes not contrary to law. (As amended by
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).

SUPERVISORS

ART. 245. Inel i gi bi l i ty of manageri al empl oyees to j oi n any l abor
organi zati on; ri ght of supervi sory empl oyees. - Managerial employees
are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization. Supervisory
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
organizations of their own. (As amended by Section 18, Republic Act No.
6715, March 21, 1989).

ART. 245-A. Ef f ect of i ncl usi on as members of empl oyees outsi de
the bargai ni ng uni t. The inclusion as union members of employees
outside the bargaining unit shall not be a ground for the cancellation of the
registration of the union. Said employees are automatically deemed
removed from the list of membership of said union.

ART. 212. (m) "Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies
and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest
of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the
exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within
any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for
purposes of this Book.

employment.


RIGHT

FILOIL REFINERY CORPORATION V. FILOIL SUPERVISORY AND
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
46 SCRA 512

HELD:
As stated for the Court by the now Chief Justice in AG & P Co. of Manila, Inc.
vs. C.I.R.,

section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act "explicitly provides that
"employees" and this term includes supervisors "shall have the right to self-
organization, and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representations
of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection" and that
"individuals employed as supervisors ... may form separate organizations
of their own". Indeed, it is well settled that "in relation to his employer," a
foreman or supervisor "is an employee within the meaning of the Act" ...
For this reason, supervisors are entitled to engage in union activities and
any discrimination against them by reason thereof constitutes an unfair
labor practice."

TEST

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION V. LEGUESMA
330 SCRA 295
PICOP's main thesis is that the positions Section Heads and
Supervisors, who have been designated as Section Managers and
Unit Managers, as the case may be, were converted to managerial
employees under the decentralization and reorganization program
it implemented in 1989. Being managerial employees, with
alleged authority to hire and fire employees, they are ineligible for
union membership under Article 245 of the Labor Code.
Furthermore, PICOP contends that no malice should be imputed
against it for implementing its decentralization program only after
the petition for certification election was filed inasmuch as the
same is a valid exercise of its management prerogative, and that
said program has long been in the drawing boards of the
company, which was realized only in 1989 and fully implemented
in 1991. PICOP emphatically stresses that it could not have
conceptualized the decentralization program only for the purpose
of "thwarting the right of the concerned employees to self-
organization."

HELD:
Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers, Middle Managers and
First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to
devise, implement and control strategic and operational policies while the
task of First-Line Managers is simply to ensure that such policies are
carried out by the rank-and- file employees of an organization. Under this
distinction, "managerial employees" therefore fall in two (2) categories,
namely, the "managers" per se composed of Top and Middle Managers, and
the "supervisors" composed of First-Line Managers. Thus, the mere fact
that an employee is designated "manager" does not ipso facto make him
one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description of
the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of
employment.

In the petition before us, a thorough dissection of the job description of the
concerned supervisory employees and section heads indisputably show
that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since
they do not lay down company policies. PICOP's contention that the
subject section heads and unit managers exercise the authority to hire and
fire is ambiguous and quite misleading for the reason that any authority
they exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not
a final determination of the company policies inasmuch as any action
taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer,
suspension and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation
and approval by their respective superior. Thus, where such power, which
is in effect recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review
and final action by the department heads and other higher executives of
the company, the same, although present, is not effective and not an
exercise of independent judgment as required by law.

SAMSON V. NLRC
330 SCRA 460
Samson was dismissed due to serious misconduct and loss of
trust and confidence.

HELD:

Samson was illegally dismissed. Given the environmental circumstances of
this case, the acts of petitioner clearly do not constitute serious
misconduct as to justify his dismissal. Neither is his dismissal justified on
ground of loss of confidence. As a ground for dismissal, the term "trust and
confidence" is restricted to managerial employees. We share the view of
the Solicitor General that petitioner is not a managerial employee. Before
one may be properly considered a managerial employee, all the following
conditions must be met:

(1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in
which they are employed or of a department or sub-division thereof;

(2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more
employees therein;

(3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or
their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as
to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees we
given particular weight.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS V, TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION
395 SCRA 699

HELD:
Clearly, based on this provision [Article 245], a labor organization
composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate
labor organization. Not being one, an organization which carries a mixture
of rank-and-file and supervisory employees cannot posses any of the rights
of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to file a petition for
certification election for the purpose of collective bargaining. It becomes
necessary, therefore, anterior to the granting of an order allowing a
certification election, to inquire into the composition of any labor
organization whenever the status of the labor organization is challenged on
the basis of Article 245 of the Labor Code.

TO MAKE ONE A SUPERVISOR, THE POWER TO RECOMMEND MUST
NOT BE ROUTINARY OR CLERICAL IN NATURE. IT SHOULD REQUIRE
THE USE OF DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT.
1. Discretionary or judgmental
2. Independent
3. Effective

ALIENS

ART. 269. Prohi bi ti on agai nst al i ens; excepti ons. - All aliens, natural
or juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from
engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without
prejudice to normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and
recognized international labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens
working in the country with valid permits issued by the Department of
Labor and Employment, may exercise the right to self-organization and join
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of
collective bargaining: Provided, further, That said aliens are nationals of a
country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. (As
amended by Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

SECURITY GUARDS

MANILA ELECTRIC CO. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR
197 SCRA 275

HELD:
While therefore under the old rules, security guards were barred from
joining a labor organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may
now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of the
supervisory union, depending on their rank. By accommodating
supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor must likewise apply the
provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by favorably allowing them free
access to a labor organization, whether rank and file or supervisory, in
recognition of their constitutional right to self-organization.
We are aware however of possi bl e consequences i n the
i mpl ementati on of the l aw i n al l owi ng securi ty personnel to j oi n
l abor uni ons wi thi n the company they serve. The l aw i s apt to
produce di vi ded l oyal ti es i n the f ai thf ul perf ormance of thei r duti es.
Economi c reasons woul d present the empl oyees concerned wi th the
temptati on to subordi nate thei r duti es to the al l egi ance they owe
the uni on of whi ch they are members, aware as they are that i t i s
usual l y uni on acti on that obtai ns f or them i ncreased pecuni ary

benef i ts.
Thus, in the event of a strike declared by their union, security personnel
may neglect or outrightly abandon their duties, such as protection of
property of their employer and the persons of its officials and employees,
the control of access to the employer's premises, and the maintenance of
order in the event of emergencies and untoward incidents.
It is hoped that the corresponding amendatory and/or suppletory laws be
passed by Congress to avoid possible conflict of interest in security
personnel.

WORKERS WITH NO RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION

MANAGERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES

ART. 212. (m) "Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies
and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest
of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions if the
exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within
any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for
purposes of this Book.

TEST

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION V.
LAGUESMA
15 AUGUST 1997

HELD:
Not every position labeled by management as confidential automatically
becomes disqualified from union membership. Legal definition must be
applied.

In unionization context, confidential employees are limited to those who:
1. Assist or act in a confidential capacity
2. To persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate cumulative,
And both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential
employeethat is, the confidential relationship must exist between the
employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the
prescribed responsibilities relating to the union.

PROHIBITION AND RATIONALE
The powers of the position and not the title make the position-
holder the manager or a supervisor

METROLAB INDUSTRIES V. ROLDAN-CONFESSOR
254 SCRA 182

The Secretary, in deciding the dispute between the union and
employer, held that executive secretaries are included in the
bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees.

HELD:
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form
and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence
has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by
reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a
fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to
sensitive and highly confidential records.

The rationale for this inhibition has been stated to be, because if these
managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the
latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident
conflict of interests. The union can also become company-dominated with
the presence of managerial employees in Union membership. It may
likewise be the source of undue advantage wherein these employees may
act as spies for either party to a collective bargaining activity.
Furthermore, in the collective bargaining process, managerial employees
are supposed to be on the side of the employer, to act as its
representatives, and to see to it that its interest are well protected. The
employer is not assured of such protection if these employees themselves
are union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation can become
one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled this Court to consider the
position of confidential employees as included in the disqualification found
in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees were written
in the provision. If confidential employees could unionize in order to

bargain for advantages for themselves, then they could be governed by
their own motives rather than the interest of the employers. Moreover,
unionization of confidential employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining would mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals
who are supposed to act "in the interest of the employers. It is not
farfetched that in the course of collective bargaining, they might jeopardize
that interest which they are duty-bound to protect

WORKER/MEMBER OF COOPERATIVE

An employee of a cooperative who is also a member and co-owner
cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining, for certainly an
owner cannot bargain with himself and his co-owners
However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees or
members thereof, such employees are entitled to collective
bargaining negotiations and such rights which are enshrined in the
Constitution and existing laws
But even as regards employees who are members of the
cooperative, their incapacity to bargain doesnt stop them from
forming their organization which isnt a union

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V. CALLEJA
180 SCRA 740

HELD:
The issue of whether or not employees of a cooperative are qualified to
form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining has
already been resolved and clarified in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of
Davao City, Inc. vs. Ferrer Calleja, et al. [G.R. No. 7795, September 26,1988]
and reiterated in the cases of Batangas-Electric Cooperative Labor Union v.
Young, et al. [G.R. Nos. 62386, 70880 and 74560 November 9, 1988] and
San Jose City Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Ministry of Labor and
Employment, et al. [G.R. No. 77231, May 31, 1989] wherein the Court had
stated that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an
employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-
owner thereof. With respect, however, to employees who are neither
members nor co-owners of the cooperative they are entitled to exercise the
rights to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiation as
mandated by the 1987 Constitution and applicable statutes.

Contrary to respondents' claim, the fact that the members-employees of
petitioner do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative
does not make them eligible to form, assist or join a labor organization for
the purpose of collective bargaining with petitioner. The Court's ruling in
the Davao City case that members of cooperative cannot join a labor union
for purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that as
members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As such, they
cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner
cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners." [Cooperative Rural Bank of
Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, et al., supra]. It is the fact of ownership
of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which
disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the
cooperative. Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the
actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form,
assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.

IF MEMBERS/CO-OWNERS OF A COOPERATIVE ARE PROHIBITED FROM
JOINING AND FORMING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, THEN IT FOLLOWS
THAT STOCKHOLDERS/EMPLOYEES OF A CORPORATION MAY
LIKEWISE BE PROHIBITED FROM FORMING OR JOINING LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS. TRUE OR FALSE?
False, while cooperatives may exercise some of the rights and
privileges given to ordinary corporations provided under existing
laws, such cooperatives enjoy other privileges not granted to the
latter. Similarly, members of cooperatives have rights and
obligations different from those of stockholders of ordinary
corporations. It was precisely because of the special nature of
cooperatives, that the Court held in the Davao City case that
members-employees thereof cannot form or join a labor union for
purposes of collective bargaining.
Following the abovementioned rationale, it was held in Rural Bank
of Davao City, A cooperative ... is by its nature different from an
ordinary business concern being run either by persons,
partnerships, or corporations. Its owners and/or members are the
ones who run and operate the business while the others are its
employees. As above stated, irrespective of the number of shares
owned by each member they are entitled to cast one vote each in
deciding upon the affairs of the cooperative. Their share capital
earn limited interest. They enjoy special privileges as-exemption
from income tax and sales taxes, preferential right to supply their

products to State agencies and even exemption from the minimum
wage laws.
An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and
co-owner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining
for certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-
owners.

NON-EMPLOYEES


REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK V. LAGUESMA
264 SCRA 637

HELD:
The more applicable case is Singer Sewing Machine Company vs. Drilon, et
al.,

where we ruled that if the union members are not employees, no right
to organize for purposes of bargaining, nor to be certified as bargaining
agent can be recognized. Since the persons involved are not employees of
the company, we held that they are not entitled to the constitutional right
to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining.

The question of whether employer-employee relationship exists is a
primordial consideration before extending labor benefits under the
workmen's compensation, social security, medicare, termination pay and
labor relations law. It is important in the determination of who shall be
included in the proposed bargaining unit because, it is the sine qua non,
the fundamental and essential condition that a bargaining unit be
composed of employees. Failure to establish this juridical relationship
between the union members and the employer affects the legality of the
union itself. It means the ineligibility of the union members to present a
petition for certification election as well as to vote therein.

PARTY PROTECTED

MACTAN WORKERS UNION V. ABOITIZ
45 SCRA 577

HELD:
It is quite understandable that labor unions in their campaign for
membership, for acquiring ascendancy in any shop, plant, or industry
would do what lies in their power to put down competing groups. The
struggle is likely to be marked with bitterness, no quarter being given or
expected on the part of either side. Nevertheless, it is not to be forgotten
that what is entitled to constitutional protection is labor, or more
specifically the working men and women, not labor organizations. The
latter are merely the instrumentalities through which their welfare may be
promoted and fostered. That is the raison d'etre of labor unions. The
utmost care should be taken then, lest in displaying an unyielding,
intransigent attitude on behalf of their members, injustice be committed
against opposing labor organizations. In the final analysis, they alone are
not the sole victims, but the labor movement itself, which may well be the
recipient of a crippling blow. Moreover, while it is equally understandable
that their counsel would take advantage of every legal doctrine deemed
applicable or conjure up any defense that could serve their cause, still, as
officers of the court, there should be an awareness that resort to such a
technique does result in clogged dockets, without the least justification
especially so if there be insistence on flimsy and insubstantial contentions
just to give some semblance of plausibility to their pleadings. Certainly,
technical virtuosity, or what passes for it, is no substitute for an earnest
and sincere desire to assure that there be justice according to law. That is
a creed to which all members of the legal profession, labor lawyers not
excluded, should do their best to live by.

NON-ABRIDGMENT OF RIGHT



ART. 248. Unf ai r l abor practi ces of empl oyers. - It shall be unlawful
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization;

(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee
shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he
belongs;

(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union
members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization;

(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or
other support to it or its organizers or supporters;

(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other
law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized
collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those
employees who are already members of another union at the time of the
signing of the collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to
the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under
the collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that the individual
authorization required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall
not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining
agent;

(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an
employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this
Code;

(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

(h) To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its officers or
agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any
other dispute; or

(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the
officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall
be held criminally liable. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130,
August 21, 1981).

ART. 249. Unf ai r l abor practi ces of l abor organi zati ons. - It shall be
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or
representatives:

(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to
prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership;

(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to
whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate
an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions
under which membership or continuation of membership is made available
to other members;

(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer,
provided it is the representative of the employees;

(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to
pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an

exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed,
including the demand for fee for union negotiations;

(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from employers as
part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other
dispute; or

(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the
officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or
members of labor associations or organizations who have actually
participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held
criminally liable. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21,
1981).

LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

POLICY

ART. 211.

(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement
of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development;

(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united
labor movement;

(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and
obligations as union members and as employees;

LABOR ORGANIZATIONS: UNIONS

ART. 212.

employment.

(h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor organization duly
any branch or local thereof.

AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION V. CIR
76 SCRA 274

The case involves the dispute between two groups within the
associationon whether it is the Gaston group or Gomez group
which is the rightful group of officers of the association.

HELD:
One cannot likewise subcribe to the restrictive interpretation made by the
court below of the term "labor organization," which Section 2(e) of R.A. 875
defines as any union or association of employees which exist, in whole or
in part, for the purpose of the collective bargaining or dealing with
employers concerning terms and conditions of employment." The absence
of the condition which the court below would attach to the statutory
concept of a labor organization, as being limited to the employees of
particular employer, is quite evident from the law. The emphasis of
Industrial Peace Act is clearly on the pourposes for which a union or
association of employees established rather than that membership therein
should be limited only to the employees of a particular employer. Trite to
say, under Section 2(h) of R.A 875 "representative" is define as including "a
legitimate labor organization or any officer or agent of such organization,
whether or not employed by the employer or employeewhom he
represents." It cannot be overemphasized likewise that labor dispute can
exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation
of employer and employee.

There is, furthermore, nothing in the constitution and by-laws of ALPAP
which indubitably restricts membership therein to PAL pilots alone. 1
Although according to ALPAP (Gomez there has never been an instance
when a non-PAL pilot became a member of ALPAP, the complete lack of
any such precondition for ALPAP membership cannot but be interpreted as
an unmistakable authority for the association to accept pilots into its fold
though they may not be under PAL's employ.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION V. SAN MIGUEL

533 SCRA 125

Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent of rank-and-file
employees of SMCs three divisions. The respondent has been
issued a charter as a labor union. Respondent sought to be
certified as the bargaining agent of the same type of employees
like those of petitioner. Petitioner filed for the cancellation of
registration and listing as labor organization of respondent.
Among other allegations, petitioner alleged that respondent is a
trade union and not a legitimate labor organization.

HELD:
A legitimate labor organization

is defined as "any labor organization duly
any branch or local thereof."

The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure
strict compliance with the requirements on registration because a
legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Labor
Code,

and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public
interest. Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of
protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining
unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union
funds or use the labor organization for illegitimate ends.

Legitimate labor
organizations have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be
exercised by non-legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining. The
acquisition of rights by any union or labor organization, particularly the
right to file a petition for certification election, first and foremost, depends
on whether or not the labor organization has attained the status of a
legitimate labor organization.

CEBU SEAMANS ASSOCIATION V. FERRER-CALLEJA
212 SCRA 50

HELD:
As stated in the findings of fact in the questioned resolution of Director
Pura Ferrer-Calleja, on October 23, 1950, a group of deck officers
organized the Cebu Seamen's Association, Inc., (CSAI), a non-stock
corporation and registered it with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The same group registered the organization with the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) as Seamen's Association of the
Philippines (SAPI). It is the registration of the organization with the BLR
and not with the SEC which made it a legitimate labor organization with
rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.

UNION FUNCTION AND RATIONALE

UNITED SEAMANS UNION V. DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSN.
20 SCRA 1226

HELD:
A labor organization is wholesome if it serves its legitimate purpose of
promoting the interests of labor without unnecessary labor disputes. That
is why it is given personality and recognition in concluding collective
bargaining agreements. But if it is made use of as a subterfuge, or as a
means to subvert valid commitments, it defeats its own purpose, for it
tends to undermine the harmonious relations between management and
labor. The situation does not deserve any approving sanction from the
Court.

GUIJARNO V. CIR
52 SCRA 307

HELD:
The obligation was categorically imposed on the State, under the 1935
Constitution, to "afford protection to labor, especially to working women
and minors..." That is to carry out the purpose implicit in one of the five
declared principles, namely, the promotion of social justice "to insure the
well-being and economic security of all the people" It is then the
individual employee, as a separate, finite human being, with his problems
and his needs, who must be attended to. He is the beneficiary of the
concern thus made manifest by the fundamental law. The present
Constitution is even more explicit on the matter. The principle that the
State shall promote social justice is categorically based on the concept of
insuring "the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people." Insofar as the
provision on the State affording protection to labor is concerned, it is
further required to "promote full employment and equality in employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and
regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall
assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,

security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work." Where does
that leave a labor union, it may be asked. Correctly understood, it is
nothing but the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would
be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer
who is helpless as against a powerful employer may, through concerted
effort and activity, achieve the goal of economic well-being. That is the
philosophy underlying the Industrial Peace Act. For, rightly has it been said
that workers unorganized are weak; workers organized are strong.
Necessarily then, they join labor unions. To further increase the
effectiveness of such organizations, a closed-shop has been allowed. It
could happen, though, that such a stipulation which assures further weight
to a labor union at the bargaining table could be utilized against minority
groups or individual members thereof. There are indications that such a
deplorable situation did so manifest itself here. Respondent Court, it would
appear, was not sufficiently alert to such a danger. What is worse, it paid
no heed to the controlling doctrine which is merely a recognition of a basic
fact in life, namely, that power in a collectivity could be the means of
crushing opposition and stifling the voices of those who are in dissent. The
right to join others of like persuasion is indeed valuable. An individual by
himself may feel inadequate to meet the exigencies of life or even to
express his personality without the right to association being vitalized. It
could happen though that whatever group may be in control of the
organization may simply ignore his most-cherished desires and treat him
as if he counts for naught. The antagonism between him and the group
becomes marked. Dissatisfaction if given expression may be labeled
disloyalty. In the labor field, the union under such circumstances may no
longer be a haven of refuge, but indeed as much of a potential foe as
management itself. Precisely with the Anakan doctrine, such an
undesirable eventuality has been sought to be minimized, if not entirely
avoided. There is no justification then, both as a matter of precedent and
as a matter of principle, for the decision reached by respondent Court.

LABOR UNION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION

UNION REGISTRATION AND PROCEDURE

REQUIREMENTS
ART. 234. Requi rements of regi strati on. - A federation, national union
or industry or trade union center or an independent union shall acquire
legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted
by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of
registration based on the following requirements:
(a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the
labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings and the list
of the workers who participated in such meetings;
(c) In case the applicant is an independent union, the names of all its
members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in
the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
(d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more years,
copies of its annual financial reports; and
(e) Four copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union,
minutes of its adoption or ratification, and the list of the members who
participated in it.

ART. 234-A. Charteri ng and Creati on of a Local Chapter. - A duly
registered federation or national union may directly create a local chapter
by issuing a charter certificate indicating the establishment of the local
chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes of
filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a
charter certificate.
The chapter shall be entitled to all other rights and privileges of a
legitimate labor organization only upon the submission of the following
documents in addition to its charter certificate:
(a) The names of the chapter's officers, their addresses, and the principal
office of the chapter; and
(b) The chapter's constitution and by-laws: Provided, That where the
chapter's constitution and by-laws are the same as that of the federation or
the national union, this fact shall be indicated accordingly.

The additional supporting requirements shall be certified under oath by
the secretary or treasurer of the chapter and attested by its president.

ART. 235. Acti on on appl i cati on. - The Bureau shall act on all
applications for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the
secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and
attested to by its president.

SAN MIGUEL CORP., ETC. V. SAN MIGUEL
Supra

Petitioner posits that respondent is required to submit a list of
members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the
bargaining unit before it may acquire legitimacy, citing Article
234(c) of the Labor Code which stipulates that any applicant labor
organization, association or group of unions or workers shall
acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and
privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon
issuance of the certificate of registration based on the following
requirements:
a. Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee;
b. The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal
address of the labor organization, the minutes of the
organizational meetings and the list of the workers who
participated in such meetings;
c. The names of all its members comprising at least
twenty percent (20%) of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;
d. If the applicant union has been in existence for one or
more years, copies of its annual financial reports; and
e. Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the
applicant union, minutes of its adoption or ratification and
the list of the members who participated in it.
Petitioner also insists that the 20% requirement for registration of
respondent must be based not on the number of employees of a
single division, but in all three divisions of the company in all the
offices and plants of SMC since they are all part of one bargaining
unit.

HELD:
This Court deems it proper to apply the Latin maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius. Under this maxim of statutory interpretation, the
expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. When certain persons
or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all
others from its operation may be inferred. If a statute specifies one
exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain
provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.

Where the terms are
expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters.

Such is the case here. If its
intent were otherwise, the law could have so easily and conveniently
included "trade union centers" in identifying the labor organizations
allowed to charter a chapter or local. Anything that is not included in the
enumeration is excluded therefrom, and a meaning that does not appear
nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be
placed therein. The rule is restrictive in the sense that it proceeds from the
premise that the legislating body would not have made specific
enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning
and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.

Expressium facit
cessare tacitum.

What is expressed puts an end to what is implied. Casus
omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object or thing omitted must
have been omitted intentionally.

Therefore, since under the pertinent status and applicable implementing
rules, the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter
or local through chartering is given to a federation or national union, then a
trade union center is without authority to charter directly.

COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT SECRETARY
507 SCRA 300

HELD:
Under the rules implementing the Labor Code, a chartered local union
acquires legal personality through the charter certificate issued by a duly
registered federation or national union, and reported to the Regional Office
in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A local union
does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is affiliated. It is a
separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of

its members. Mere affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act
independently of the local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency,
where the former acts in representation of the latter. Hence, local unions
are considered principals while the federation is deemed to be merely their
agent. As such principals, the unions are entitled to exercise the rights
and privileges of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate
employer unit.

RATIONALE

PHOENIX IRON AND STEEL CORP. V. SEC. OF LABOR
244 SCRA 173

HELD:
In the case of union registration, the rationale for requiring that the
submitted documents and papers be certified under oath by the secretary
or treasurer, as the case may be, and attested to by the president is
apparent. The submission of the required documents (and payment of
P50.00 registration fee) becomes the Bureau's basis for approval of the
application for registration. Upon approval, the labor union acquires legal
personality and is entitled to all the rights and privileges granted by the
law to a legitimate labor organization. The employer naturally needs
assurance that the union it is dealing with is a bona-fide organization, one
which has not submitted false statements or misrepresentations to the
Bureau. The inclusion of the certification and attestation requirements will
in a marked degree allay these apprehensions of management. Not only is
the issuance of any false statement and misrepresentation a ground for
cancellation of registration (see Article 239 (a), (c) and (d)); it is also a
ground for a criminal charge of perjury.

The certification and attestation requirements are preventive measures
against the commission of fraud. They likewise afford a measure of
protection to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining
unscrupulous or fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union
funds or to use the union for dubious ends.

In the case of union affiliation with a federation, the documentary
requirements are found in Rule II, Section 3 (e), Book V of the
Implementing Rules, which we again quote as follows: "(c) The local or
chapter of a labor federation or national union shall have and maintain a
constitution and by-laws, set of officers and books of accounts. For
reporting purposes, the procedure governing the reporting of independently
registered unions, federations or national unions shall be observed" (emphasis
supplied).

Since the "procedure governing the reporting of independently registered
unions" refers to the certification and attestation requirements contained in
Article 235, paragraph 2, it follows that the constitution and by-laws, set of
officers and books of accounts submitted by the local and chapter must
likewise comply with these requirements. The same rationale for requiring
the submission of duly subscribed documents upon union registration
exists in the case of union affiliation. Moreover, there is greater reason to
exact compliance with the certification and attestation requirements
because, as previously mentioned, several requirements applicable to
independent union registration are no longer required in the case of the
formation of a local or chapter. The policy of the law in conferring greater
bargaining power upon labor unions must be balanced with the policy of
providing preventive measures against the commission of fraud.

CONSTITUTION; BY-LAWS

Supra

HELD:
The point to be stressed is that the union's CBL is the fundamental law
that governs the relationship between and among the members of the
union. It is where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions and
authority of the officers as well as the members are defined. It is the
organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any officer or
member of the union. Without respect for the CBL, a union as a
democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of
individuals governed by mob rule.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION V. MANDAUE
467 SCRA 107

HELD:

By-laws has traditionally been defined as regulations, ordinances, rules or
laws adopted by an association or corporation or the like for its internal
governance, including rules for routine matters such as calling meetings
and the like. The importance of by-laws to a labor organization cannot be
gainsaid. Without such provisions governing the internal governance of the
organization, such as rules on meetings and quorum requirements, there
would be no apparent basis on how the union could operate. Without a set
of by-laws which provides how the local/chapter arrives at its decisions or
otherwise wields its attributes of legal personality, then every action of the
local/chapter may be put into legal controversy.

However, if those key by-law provisions on matters such as quorum
requirements, meetings, or on the internal governance of the local/chapter
are themselves already provided for in the constitution, then it would be
feasible to overlook the requirement for by-laws. Indeed in such an event,
to insist on the submission of a separate document denominated as By-
Laws would be an undue technicality, as well as a redundancy.

An examination of respondents constitution reveals it sufficiently
comprehensive in establishing the necessary rules for its operation. Article
IV establishes the requisites for membership in the local/chapter. Articles
V and VI name the various officers and what their respective functions are.
The procedure for election of these officers, including the necessary vote
requirements, is provided for in Article IX, while Article XV delineates the
procedure for the impeachment of these officers. Article VII establishes the
standing committees of the local/chapter and how their members are
appointed. Article VIII lays down the rules for meetings of the union,
including the notice and quorum requirements thereof. Article X
enumerates with particularity the rules for union dues, special
assessments, fines, and other payments. Article XII provides the general
rule for quorum in meetings of the Board of Directors and of the members
of the local/chapter, and cites the applicability of the Roberts Rules of
Order[43] in its meetings. And finally, Article XVI governs and institutes
the requisites for the amendment of the constitution.

Indeed, it is difficult to see in this case what a set of by-laws separate from
the constitution for respondent could provide that is not already provided
for by the Constitution. These premises considered, there is clearly no
need for a separate set of by-laws to be submitted by respondent.

EFFECT ON CONSTITUTION: STATUTORY GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION

PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS V. SEC. OF LABOR
27 SCRA 40

HELD:
The theory to the effect that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly
curtails the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights is devoid of factual basis. The registration prescribed in paragraph
(b) of said section

is not a limitation to the right of assembly or
association, which may be exercised with or without said registration.

The
latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the acquisition of legal
personality by labor organizations, associations or unions and the
possession of the "rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations". The Constitution does not guarantee these rights and
privileges, much less said personality, which are mere statutory creations,
for the possession and exercise of which registration is required to protect
both labor and the public against abuses, fraud, or impostors who pose as
organizers, although not truly accredited agents of the union they purport
to represent. Such requirement is a valid exercise of the police power,
because the activities in which labor organizations, associations and union
of workers are engaged affect public interest, which should be protected.

Furthermore, the obligation to submit financial statements, as a condition
for the non-cancellation of a certificate of registration, is a reasonable
regulation for the benefit of the members of the organization, considering
that the same generally solicits funds or membership, as well as
oftentimes collects, on behalf of its members, huge amounts of money due
to them or to the organization.

QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION V. SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION
Supra

HELD:
A legitimate labor organization is defined as any labor organization duly
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment and includes
any branch or local thereof. The mandate of the Labor Code is to ensure

strict compliance with the requirements of registration because a
legitimate labor organization is entitled to specific rights under the Code
and are involved in activities directly affecting matters of public interest.
Registration requirements are intended to afford a measure of protection
to unsuspecting employees who may be lured into joining unscrupulous or
fly-by-night unions whose sole purpose is to control union funds or use the
labor organization for illegitimate ends. Legitimate labor organizations
have exclusive rights under the law which cannot be exercised by non-
legitimate unions, one of which is the right to be certified as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining
unit for purposes of collective bargaining.

ACTION OR DENIAL OF APPLICATION AND REMEDY

ART. 235. Action on application. - The Bureau shall act on all applications
for registration within thirty (30) days from filing.

All requisite documents and papers shall be certified under oath by the
secretary or the treasurer of the organization, as the case may be, and
attested to by its president.

ART. 236. Denial of registration; appeal. - The decision of the Labor Relations
Division in the regional office denying registration may be appealed by the
applicant union to the Bureau within ten (10) days from receipt of notice
thereof.

UMALI V. LOVINA
86 PHIL 313

HELD:
Mandamus will lie against the Secretary of Labor when there is no lawful
reason for him to refuse the registration of the application for the
petitioners union and permission to operate as a legitimate labor
organization, it being the duty of the respondent to register the application
and issue the permit upon payment of the required fee, as provided for by
law, the investigation to be conducted by him, as required by law, having
been conducted and completed, as may be inferred from his official
statements in connection therewith.

*duty is ministerial, mandamus will lie "
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (MANDAUE PACKAGING) V. MANDAUE
PACKING PRODUCTS PLANTS
467 SCRA 107

HELD:
When a local/chapter applies for registration, matters raised against the
personality of the federation or national union itself should not be acted
upon by the Bureau or Regional office, owing to the preclusion of collateral
attack. Instead, the proper matter for evaluation by the Bureau or
Regional Office should be limited to whether the local/chapter is indeed a
duly created affiliate of the national union or federation.

RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

ACEDERA V. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER SERVICES
395 SCRA 103

HELD:
A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under
the Labor Code which provides that a union may act as a representative of
its members for the purpose of collective bargaining.

CORNISTA-DOMINGO V. NLRC
504 SCRA 659

HELD:
A labor unions function is to represent its members and it can, therefore,
file an action or enter into compromise agreements on behalf of its
members.

EFFECTS OF NON-REGISTRATION

PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY V. SECRETARY OF LABOR
242 SCRA 99

Whether books of account form part of the mandatory
documentary requirements for registration of a newly organized
union affiliated with a federation, or a local or chapter of such a
federation, as a legitimate labor organization?


HELD:
Books of account are one of the mandatory requirements for registration of
a newly organized union affiliated with a federation. And the non-
submission of such is a ground to oppose a certification election.

It has to be noted that the controlling intention is to minimize the fraud
and diversion in the course of subsequent formation and growth of the
union fund. These requirements an exercise of the overriding police power
of the State, designed for the protection of workers against potential abuse
by unions and federations that recruit them.

CANCELLATION OF UNION CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION

ART. 238. Cancellation of registration, appeal. The certificate of registration
of any legitimate labor organization, whether national or local, may be
cancelled by the Bureau, after due hearing, only on the grounds specified
in Article 239.

ART. 238-A. Effect of petition for cancellation of registration. A petition for
cancellation of union registration shall not suspend the proceedings on
certification election nor shall it prevent the filing of a petition for
certification election.

In case of cancellation, nothing herein shall restrict the right of the union
to seek just and equitable remedies in the appopriate courts.

ART. 239. Grounds for cancellation of union registration. - The following shall
constitute grounds for cancellation of union registration:

(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the
adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of ratification and the list of members who took part
in the ratification;

(b) Failure to submit the documents mentioned in the preceding paragraph
within thirty (30) days from adoption or ratification of the constitution and
by-laws or amendments thereto;

(c) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the
election of officers, minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or
failure to submit these documents together with the list of the newly
elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30)
days from election;chan robles virtual law library

(d) Failure to submit the annual financial report to the Bureau within thirty
(30) days after the closing of every fiscal year and misrepresentation, false
entries or fraud in the preparation of the financial report itself;

(e) Acting as a labor contractor or engaging in the "cabo" system, or
otherwise engaging in any activity prohibited by law;

(f) Entering into collective bargaining agreements which provide terms and
conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law;

(g) Asking for or accepting attorneys fees or negotiation fees from
employers;

(h) Other than for mandatory activities under this Code, checking off
special assessments or any other fees without duly signed individual
written authorizations of the members;

(i) Failure to submit list of individual members to the Bureau once a year
or whenever required by the Bureau; and

(j) Failure to comply with requirements under Articles 237 and 238.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION: PROHIBITION AND
REGULATION

ART. 269. Prohibition against aliens; exceptions. - All aliens, natural or
juridical, as well as foreign organizations are strictly prohibited from
engaging directly or indirectly in all forms of trade union activities without
prejudice to normal contacts between Philippine labor unions and
recognized international labor centers: Provided, however, That aliens
working in the country with valid permits issued by the Department of
Labor and Employment, may exercise the right to self-organization and join
or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of
collective bargaining: Provided, further, That said aliens are nationals of a
country which grants the same or similar rights to Filipino workers. (As
amended by Section 29, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).


ART. 270. Regulation of foreign assistance. - (a) No foreign individual,
organization or entity may give any donations, grants or other forms of
assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly, to any labor
organization, group of workers or any auxiliary thereof, such as
cooperatives, credit unions and institutions engaged in research, education
or communication, in relation to trade union activities, without prior
permission by the Secretary of Labor.

"Trade union activities" shall mean:
(1) organization, formation and administration of labor organization;

(2) negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements;

(3) all forms of concerted union action;

(4) organizing, managing, or assisting union conventions, meetings, rallies,
referenda, teach-ins, seminars, conferences and institutes;

(5) any form of participation or involvement in representation proceedings,
representation elections, consent elections, union elections; and

(6) other activities or actions analogous to the foregoing.

(b) This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations, grants or
other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, given directly or indirectly to
any employer or employers organization to support any activity or
activities affecting trade unions.

(c) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations to
regulate and control the giving and receiving of such donations, grants, or
other forms of assistance, including the mandatory reporting of the
amounts of the donations or grants, the specific recipients thereof, the
projects or activities proposed to be supported, and their duration.

ART. 271. Applicability to farm tenants and rural workers. - The provisions of
this Title pertaining to foreign organizations and activities shall be deemed
applicable likewise to all organizations of farm tenants, rural workers, and
the like: Provided, That in appropriate cases, the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform shall exercise the powers and responsibilities vested by this Title in
the Secretary of Labor.

UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS

ART. 241. Rights and conditions of membership in a labor organization. - The
following are the rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization:

(a) No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the
members of a legitimate labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or
oppressive fine and forfeiture be imposed;

(b) The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their
officers and representatives of all financial transactions as provided for in
the constitution and by-laws of the organization;

(c) The members shall directly elect their officers, including those of the
national union or federation, to which they or their union is affiliated, by
secret ballot at intervals of five (5) years. No qualification requirements for
candidacy to any position shall be imposed other than membership in
good standing in subject labor organization. The secretary or any other
responsible union officer shall furnish the Secretary of Labor and
Employment with a list of the newly-elected officers, together with the
appointive officers or agents who are entrusted with the handling of funds,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the election of officers or from the
occurrence of any change in the list of officers of the labor organization;
(As amended by Section 16, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

(d) The members shall determine by secret ballot, after due deliberation,
any question of major policy affecting the entire membership of the
organization, unless the nature of the organization or force majeure
renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case, the board of
directors of the organization may make the decision in behalf of the
general membership;

(e) No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in
membership any individual who belongs to a subversive organization or
who is engaged directly or indirectly in any subversive activity;


(f) No person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
shall be eligible for election as a union officer or for appointment to any
position in the union;

(g) No officer, agent or member of a labor organization shall collect any
fees, dues, or other contributions in its behalf or make any disbursement
of its money or funds unless he is duly authorized pursuant to its
constitution and by-laws;

(h) Every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall
be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the
collection and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and
maintained for the purpose;

(i) The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or
object other than those expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws
or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority
of the members at a general meeting duly called for the purpose;

(j) Every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a
record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be
evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made,
which shall state the date, place and purpose of such payment. Such
record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the
organization.

Any action involving the funds of the organization shall prescribe after
three (3) years from the date of submission of the annual financial report
to the Department of Labor and Employment or from the date the same
should have been submitted as required by law, whichever comes earlier:
Provided, That this provision shall apply only to a legitimate labor
organization which has submitted the financial report requirements under
this Code: Provided, further, that failure of any labor organization to
comply with the periodic financial reports required by law and such rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder six (6) months after the effectivity
of this Act shall automatically result in the cancellation of union
registration of such labor organization; (As amended by Section 16,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

(k) The officers of any labor organization shall not be paid any
compensation other than the salaries and expenses due to their positions
as specifically provided for in its constitution and by-laws, or in a written
resolution duly authorized by a majority of all the members at a general
membership meeting duly called for the purpose. The minutes of the
meeting and the list of participants and ballots cast shall be subject to
inspection by the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives.
Any irregularities in the approval of the resolutions shall be a ground for
impeachment or expulsion from the organization;

(l) The treasurer of any labor organization and every officer thereof who is
responsible for the account of such organization or for the collection,
management, disbursement, custody or control of the funds, moneys and
other properties of the organization, shall render to the organization and to
its members a true and correct account of all moneys received and paid by
him since he assumed office or since the last day on which he rendered
such account, and of all bonds, securities and other properties of the
organization entrusted to his custody or under his control. The rendering
of such account shall be made:
(1) At least once a year within thirty (30) days after the close of its fiscal
year;

(2) At such other times as may be required by a resolution of the majority
of the members of the organization; and

(3) Upon vacating his office.
The account shall be duly audited and verified by affidavit and a copy
thereof shall be furnished the Secretary of Labor.

(m) The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of
any labor organization shall be open to inspection by any officer or
member thereof during office hours;

(n) No special assessment or other extraordinary fees may be levied upon
the members of a labor organization unless authorized by a written
resolution of a majority of all the members in a general membership
meeting duly called for the purpose. The secretary of the organization shall
record the minutes of the meeting including 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. The record shall be attested to by
the president.

(o) Other than for mandatory activities under the Code, no special
assessments, attorneys fees, negotiation fees or any other extraordinary
fees may be checked off from any amount due to an employee without an
individual written authorization duly signed by the employee. The
authorization should specifically state the amount, purpose and beneficiary
of the deduction; and

(p) It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to inform
its members on the provisions of its constitution and by-laws, collective
bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor relations system and all their
rights and obligations under existing labor laws.

For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess reasonable
dues to finance labor relations seminars and other labor education
activities.

Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership shall be a
ground for cancellation of union registration or expulsion of officers from
office, whichever is appropriate. At least thirty percent (30%) of the
members of a union or any member or members specially concerned may
report such violation to the Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to
hear and decide any reported violation to mete the appropriate penalty.

Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of above rights and
conditions of membership shall continue to be under the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts.

CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS

SAN MIGUEL CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION V. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
Supra

NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP

HEIRS OF CRUZ V. CIR
30 SCRA 917

HELD:
The union has been evolved as an organization of collective strength for the
protection of labor against the unjust executions of capital, but equally
important s the requirement of fair dealing between the union and its
members, which is fiduciary in nature, and arises out of two factors
1. Degree of dependence of the individual employee on the union
organization
2. Corollary to the first, is the comprehensive power vested in the
union with respect to the individual.
The union may be considered but the agent of its members for the purpose
of securing for them fair and just wages and good working conditions, and
is subject to the obligation of giving the members as its principals all
information relevant to union and labor matters entrusted to it.

ISSUES

ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS

ART. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. - It shall be unfair
labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or
representatives:

(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to
prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of
membership; xxx

ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions.

(c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall,
beginning on his first day of service, be considered as an employee for
purposes of membership in any labor union. (As amended by Section 33,
Republic Act No. 6715).

Supra

HELD:
To become a union member, an employee must as a rule, not only signify
the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to realize the

intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the
unions constitution and by-laws. An employee who becomes a union
member acquires the rights and concomitant obligations that go with the
new status and becomes bound by the unions rules and obligations.

SALUNGA V. CIR
21 SCRA 216

Salunga was compelled by his fellow union members to resign. He
tendered his resignation but changed his mind. The company was
likewise reluctant to accept his resignation. But the union was
persistent. In the end, he was retained and he wanted to join the
union again, but was denied membership.

HELD:
Although the State may generally not compel a union to admit any given
individual because membership therein may be afforded or deprived as a
matter of privilege, the rule is qualified in respect of labor unions holding a
monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality or as regards a
particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement.

Labor unions arent entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for
membership, and a closed-shop provision is no excuse for the employer to
discharge, or a union to insist in discharging of an employee without any
reasonable ground therefore. Needless to say, if said unions may be
compelled to admit new members who have the requisite qualifications,
with more reason why the law and the courts exercise coercive power when
the employee involved is a long standing union member who owing to the
provocations of his fellow union members, was impelled to resign but later
on revoked the same. Surely, he may at least invoke the right of those who
seek admission for the first time, and cannot arbitrarily be denied
readmission.

RETENTION OF MEMBERSHIP

DISCIPLINE

VILLAR V. INCIONG
121 SCRA 444

HELD:
Under the IRR of the Labor Code, in the case of intra-union disputes,
redress must first be sought within the organization itself in accordance
with its constitution and by laws. However, this admits of exceptions
under varying circumstances.

In this case, the local unions constitution and by-laws shouldnt apply in
the investigation of charges against the members if the officers who filed
the charges are the same individuals, under the by-laws, who will sit as
judges. In such a case, it is the mother unions by-laws that shall be
applicable.

In the same vein, it should be noted that it is lawful for a mother union to
investigate members of an affiliated local union under its by-laws and
constitution, and if found guilty, may lawfully expel such members.

DUE PROCESS RULES

ART. 277. Miscellaneous provisions.

(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and
their right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and
May not compel a
union to admit given
individuals (matter of
privilege)
Monopoly in the
supply of labor

authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under
Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker whose
employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a
statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his
representative if he so desires in accordance with company rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of
Labor and Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be
without prejudice to the right of the worker to contest the validity or
legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional branch of
the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer.
The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment may suspend
the effects of the termination pending resolution of the dispute in the event
of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the Department of
Labor and Employment before whom such dispute is pending that the
termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a
mass lay-off. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. 6715, March
21, 1989).

Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or
when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work 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 from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement.

BUGAY V. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR
4 SCRA 487

HELD:

Labor Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR 2 DISINI NOTES (PART 2: LABOR RELATIONS LAW) 1

MA. ANGELA AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2010

You might also like