UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY EMPLOYERS

Non-Membership or Withdrawal from Union

VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (VISTRANCO) and

RAFAEL XAUDARO, petitioners, vs.
CIR, UNITED WORKERS' & FARMERS' ASSN. (UWFA) VENANCIO DANO-OG,
BUENAVENTURA AGARCIO and 137 others, respondents.
G.R. No. L-21696; February 25, 1967; CONCEPCION, C.J.

Facts:
VISTRANCO is engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels, with a branch office in
Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, under the management of Rafael Xaudaro. Its workers are
supplied by the United Workers and Farmers Association (UWFA) whose men (affiliated to
various labor unions) have regularly worked as laborers of the Company during every milling
season since immediately after World War II up to the milling season immediately preceding
November 11, 1955, when the Company refused to engage the services of Venancio Dano-og,
Buenaventura, Agarcio and 137 other persons. At the behest of the UWFA and the
Complainants, a complaint for unfair labor practice was, accordingly, filed against the Company
and Xaudaro with the CIR which ruled that the company is guilty of unfair labor practice hence
ordered the company to ceases and desist from such unfair labor practice and to reinstate the
complainants with back wages. The said order was affirmed by CIR en banc.

Issue:
Whether or not VISTRANCO is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Held:
Yes. The said charge is substantially borne out by the evidence of record, it appearing
that the workers not admitted to work beginning from November, 1955, were precisely those
belonging to the UWFA and the Mr. Xaudaro, the Company Branch Manager, had told them
point-blank that severance of their connection with the UWFA was the remedy, if they wanted to
continue working with the Company.
The order and resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed.
Company Domination

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JORGE L. ARANETA, JUDY A.

ROXAS, MANUEL B. JOVER , RAMON LLORENTE and PROGRESSIVE
EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioners, vs.
CIR and ARANETA COLISEUM EMPLOYEES ASSN., respondents.
G.R. No. L-39546; November 29, 1977; FERNANDEZ, J.:

Facts:
Araneta Coliseum Employees Association (ACEA) a legitimate labor organization in
behalf of forty-eight (48) members, instituted a case for unfair labor practice in the CIR against
Progressive Development Corporation (PDC), operating the Araneta Coliseum, Jorge Araneta,
Judy A. Roxas, Manuel B. Jover and Ramon Llorente, as officers of the corporation PDC and
Progressive Employees Union (PEU), a labor organization existing in the PDC. The complaint
alleged that the PDC, through its officers, initiated a move to disauthorize the counsel of the
complainant ACEA from appearing in a union conference with the company; that the supervisors
of PDC encouraged, and assisted in, the formation of the Progressive Employees Union (PEU)
and coerced the employees, particularly the individual complainants, to disaffiliate from the
complainant union and to affiliate with the PEU; that in July and August 1962 the respondents,
petitioners herein, discriminated against the individual complainants by either not giving them
their working schedules, lessening their number of working days and eventually dismissing them
from their employment, because of their refusal to disaffiliate from their union and join the
Progressive Employees Union.
The CIR ruled that the company is guilty of unfair labor practice hence ordered the
company to ceases and desist from such unfair labor practice and to reinstate the complainants
with back wages.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice.

Held:
Yes. From the facts of record, it is clear that the individual complainants were dismissed
because they refused to resign from the Araneta Coliseum Employees Association and to affiliate
with the Progressive Employees Union which was being aided and abetted by the Progressive
Development Corporation. There is reason to believe that had the individual complainants agreed
to resign from the ACEA and to transfer to the PEU, they would not have been separated from
their work and would even have been made permanent employees. Progressive Employees
Union was organized to camouflage the petitioner corporation's dislike for the Araneta Coliseum
Employees Association and to stave off the latter's recognition.
The petitioners were correctly found to have committed acts constituting unfair labor
practice.
Dismissal-Union Activities

ZAMBOANGA WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs.

THE NLRC, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, DIONISIO ESTIOCA and THE
STRIKERS, respondents.
G.R. No. L-82088; October 13, 1989; GRINO-AQUINO, J.:

Facts:
Dionisio Estioca, supervisor of the company and president of the union, NFL posted an
announcement on the bulletin board of the employees' coffee shop criticizing the Company for
having earmarked the sum of P250,000 for the inter-department athletic tournament (which he
called "a farce and baloony") to be held that year, instead of using the money to pay the
employees' claims for living allowance. He urged the employees to boycott the sports event.
Subsequently he was terminated by the company for loss of trust and confidence in him.
Thereafter, the union after filing a notice of strike with the Regional Director of the MOLE in
Zamboanga City stuck. Meanwhile the company asked the MOLE for arbitration. Estioca filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The Minister of Labor certified the labor dispute
to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. In obedience to the Secretary's order, the strikers tried
to return to work on August 19, 1982, but were rebuffed by the Company. Backtracking from its
earlier request for compulsory arbitration, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Minister's order on the pretext that there was nothing more to arbitrate because the strikers had
been dismissed. When its MR was denied, the Company brought the matter up to SC which ruled
that the company must respect the right of the eighty-one petitioners to resume their respective
positions as of the time the strike was called. Pursuant thereto the NLRC on September 27, 1988,
ordered the Company to readmit the striking employees including those who had been dismissed.
The Company alleged that the positions of the dismissed strikers had been filled up.
In the meantime, Estioca's complaint for illegal dismissal had also reached the SC.The
SC consolidated the cases and it required the NLRC to hold a formal hearing to determine the
legality of the strike and the dismissal of Estioca and other incidental questions. Complying with
that directive, the NLRC held hearings where evidence were presented by both sides. Later,
NLRC reiterated its earlier decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the company is guilty of unfair labor practice.

Held:
Yes. Celso Abastillas and Lilio Navarro, Comptroller and Production Manager,
respectively called the employees on separate occasions sometime in April 1982 and asked them
to withdraw their membership from the union. The company also dismissed Dionisio Estioca,
which is too harsh in view of Estioca's subsequent apology for his action in posting a bellicose
announcement critical of the Company and based on false or erroneous information.
Union busting, or interference with the formation of a union, constitutes an unfair labor
practice (Art 248, subpar. 4, Labor Code), hence a valid ground for the declaration of a strike.