ASG Law

Tag: Unfair Labor Practice

  • CBA Imposition: Balancing Employer Rights and Collective Bargaining Obligations

    In General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union v. General Milling Corporation, the Supreme Court addressed the complexities surrounding the imposition of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and its subsequent enforcement. The Court clarified that while an imposed CBA remains in effect until a new agreement is reached, its initial implementation is confined to the original CBA’s remaining term. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to both the letter and spirit of labor laws to foster fair labor practices and protect workers’ rights within the framework of collective bargaining.

    When an Employer’s Delay Tactics Lead to an Imposed CBA: Who Benefits and for How Long?

    The case began when General Milling Corporation (GMC) and the General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union (GMC-ILU) failed to renegotiate their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in a timely manner. The Union accused GMC of unfair labor practices for not providing counter-proposals, leading to legal battles. Initially, the Regional Arbitration Branch dismissed the case, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ordering the imposition of the Union’s CBA proposal for the remaining two years of the original CBA.

    However, GMC appealed, leading to a series of reversals and reinstatements. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the CBA due to GMC’s bad faith in delaying negotiations, citing precedents like Kiok Loy and Divine World University of Tacloban, which emphasize an employer’s duty to bargain collectively. The Court underscored that GMC’s refusal to make counter-proposals was a clear evasion of this duty, making it liable for unfair labor practice. The Court noted:

    GMC’s failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the worker, was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless.

    Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Union sought a writ of execution to enforce the claims of the employees under the imposed CBA, amounting to a substantial sum. GMC opposed this motion, arguing that many employees had resigned, retired, or been retrenched, and had executed waivers and quitclaims. GMC also contended that the decision only called for the execution of a CBA incorporating the Union’s proposal, not the outright computation of benefits. This led to further disputes over the period of effectivity of the CBA, the employees covered, and the specific benefits to be included in the execution.

    The Executive Labor Arbiter limited the computation of benefits to the remaining two years of the original CBA, covering only those employees who were part of the bargaining unit during that period. The Union appealed, arguing that the benefits should extend to all employees, including those hired after 1991 and those who had been separated from service. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, leading to separate petitions for certiorari filed by both GMC and the Union before the Court of Appeals (CA).

    The Court of Appeals rendered conflicting decisions. One division partially granted the Union’s petition, ruling that the imposed CBA had a term of five years and remained in force until a new CBA was concluded, but referred the case to the grievance machinery for recomputation of benefits. Another division dismissed GMC’s petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision in full. These conflicting decisions highlighted the need for the Supreme Court to clarify the scope and effectivity of the imposed CBA.

    The Supreme Court found that while the CA should have consolidated the cases to avoid conflicting decisions, neither decision could be invoked as the law of the case since neither had attained finality. The Court then addressed the period of effectivity of the imposed CBA, referencing Article XIV of the CBA, which stated that the agreement would be in effect for five years from December 1, 1991. Further, the Court cited Article 253 of the Labor Code, which requires parties to maintain the status quo and continue the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new CBA is reached. Article 253 of the Labor Code states:

    Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement. – When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties.

    The Court acknowledged that the imposed CBA should remain in effect until a new CBA is agreed upon. Despite this, the Court also emphasized that the original NLRC decision specifically ordered the imposition of the CBA for the remaining two years of the original agreement. The Court underscored that an order of execution cannot vary the terms of the original judgment. In this context, the High Court held that the computation of benefits should be limited to the period from December 1, 1991, to November 30, 1993, and only for employees employed during that time. Therefore, the Union’s claim for benefits beyond this period was deemed inappropriate for the execution of the original decision.

    Regarding the employees covered by the CBA, the Court referenced Article II of the imposed CBA, which specified that the agreement covered regular monthly paid employees at GMC’s offices, excluding managerial, supervisory, and probationary employees, as well as those covered by a separate CBA. Based on this provision, the Court upheld the exclusion of employees hired or regularized after November 30, 1993, daily paid employees covered by a separate CBA, managerial/supervisory employees, and those lacking salary information.

    The Court also addressed the validity of the quitclaims executed by 234 employees who had been separated from GMC’s service due to various reasons. The Court acknowledged that while waivers are generally viewed with disfavor, legitimate waivers representing a voluntary and reasonable settlement of claims should be respected. The Court noted that the employees had signed these waivers in exchange for substantial sums, without any evidence of coercion or unconscionable terms. Therefore, the Court held that these employees should be excluded from the computation of benefits under the imposed CBA.

    Finally, the Court addressed the specific benefits to be included in the execution. The Court affirmed the exclusion of vacation leave salary rate differentials, sick leave salary rate differentials, dislocation allowance, separation pay for voluntary resignation, and separation pay salary rate differentials due to the Union’s failure to provide substantial evidence to support these claims. The Court further directed that any benefits accruing after November 30, 1993, should be addressed through the grievance procedure outlined in the imposed CBA. This involves a process of negotiation and arbitration between GMC and the Union to resolve disputes concerning the application or interpretation of the CBA.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was the scope and effectivity of an imposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), particularly concerning the period of its implementation and the employees covered. The Court needed to determine how to balance the rights of the union and the employer in enforcing the CBA.
    What is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? A CBA is a negotiated agreement between an employer and a labor union that outlines the terms and conditions of employment for the employees in the bargaining unit. It covers aspects such as wages, benefits, working hours, and other employment-related matters.
    What does it mean for a CBA to be ‘imposed’? A CBA is ‘imposed’ when, due to an employer’s unfair labor practices or refusal to bargain in good faith, a labor authority orders the employer to adopt the union’s proposed CBA. This is often a remedy to correct the employer’s violation of labor laws.
    What period does the imposed CBA cover in this case? The imposed CBA initially covers the remaining two years of the original CBA, from December 1, 1991, to November 30, 1993, as specified in the NLRC decision. However, its terms continue to be in effect until a new CBA is agreed upon.
    Who are the employees covered by this CBA? The CBA covers regular monthly paid employees at GMC’s offices, excluding managerial, supervisory, and probationary employees, as well as those covered by a separate CBA. Employees hired or regularized after November 30, 1993, are generally excluded from the initial execution.
    What are quitclaims, and how do they affect this case? Quitclaims are waivers signed by employees relinquishing their rights and claims against the employer in exchange for compensation. In this case, employees who signed valid quitclaims are excluded from receiving additional benefits under the CBA.
    What is the significance of Article 253 of the Labor Code? Article 253 mandates that during CBA negotiations, parties must maintain the status quo and continue the terms of the existing agreement until a new agreement is reached. This ensures that employees’ rights and benefits are protected during the negotiation process.
    What benefits are excluded from the computation in this case? Vacation leave salary rate differentials, sick leave salary rate differentials, dislocation allowance, separation pay for voluntary resignation, and separation pay salary rate differentials are excluded from the initial computation. These exclusions are due to the Union’s failure to provide sufficient evidence.
    What is the grievance procedure, and how does it apply here? The grievance procedure is a process outlined in the CBA for resolving disputes between the employer and employees. In this case, it applies to benefits accruing after November 30, 1993, requiring negotiation and arbitration to determine the extent and recipients of these benefits.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the scope and limitations of enforcing an imposed CBA, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original terms while also recognizing the ongoing obligations under labor law. By limiting the initial execution to the remaining term of the original CBA and excluding employees who signed valid quitclaims, the Court strikes a balance between protecting workers’ rights and respecting employer agreements. The decision also underscores the necessity of a clear and well-documented record for computing benefits, ensuring fairness and accuracy in the implementation of labor agreements.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union (GMC-ILU) vs. General Milling Corporation, G.R. NO. 183889, June 15, 2011

  • Redundancy Dismissal in the Philippines: When is it Legal? – Understanding the Culili v. ETPI Case

    Redundancy Does Not Excuse Due Process: Employers Must Still Notify Employees and DOLE Even in Valid Redundancy Dismissals

    In today’s volatile economy, companies sometimes need to downsize. Redundancy is a valid reason for termination in the Philippines, but employers must still follow proper procedure. This case clarifies that even when a dismissal is for a legitimate reason like redundancy, failing to adhere to due process will result in penalties for the employer, even if reinstatement is not warranted. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness in employment termination, balancing employer prerogatives with employee rights.

    [G.R. No. 165381, February 09, 2011] NELSON A. CULILI, PETITIONER, VS. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., SALVADOR HIZON (PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER), EMILIANO JURADO (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD), VIRGILIO GARCIA (VICE PRESIDENT) AND STELLA GARCIA (ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT), RESPONDENTS.

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine losing your job after years of loyal service, not because of poor performance, but because your position is declared ‘redundant.’ This is the harsh reality of redundancy, a legal ground for termination in the Philippines when a role becomes unnecessary due to business changes. Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) tackles this very issue, examining whether an employee’s dismissal due to redundancy was legal and if the employer followed the correct procedures. Nelson Culili, a Senior Technician at ETPI for many years, was terminated as part of a company-wide ‘right-sizing’ program. The core legal question: Was Culili’s dismissal genuinely due to redundancy, and did ETPI fulfill its legal obligations in carrying out this termination?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: REDUNDANCY AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LABOR CODE

    Philippine labor law recognizes an employer’s right to manage its business, including streamlining operations to ensure viability. Article 283 of the Labor Code explicitly allows for termination due to redundancy:

    Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to … redundancy … by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to … redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay…

    Redundancy, as defined by jurisprudence, occurs when an employee’s position becomes superfluous. This can arise from various factors like overstaffing, decreased business, or restructuring. Crucially, while employers have the prerogative to determine redundancy, this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently held that redundancy must be proven with sufficient evidence and carried out in good faith. Furthermore, procedural due process is mandatory. This means employers must provide:

    • Substantive Due Process: A valid and authorized cause for termination, such as redundancy.
    • Procedural Due Process: Proper notice and opportunity to be heard. For redundancy, this translates to a written notice to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before termination.

    Failure to comply with either substantive or procedural due process can render a dismissal illegal. However, as clarified in cases like Agabon v. NLRC and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot, the consequences differ depending on whether the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and whether procedural lapses occurred.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: CULILI’S DISMISSAL AND THE COURT BATTLES

    Nelson Culili had dedicated 18 years to ETPI when the company, facing financial difficulties, implemented a ‘Right-Sizing Program.’ This program involved two phases: a Special Retirement Program and a company-wide reorganization. Culili did not accept the retirement offer. Subsequently, ETPI abolished Culili’s department, the Service Quality Department, arguing that his Senior Technician role became redundant as its functions were absorbed by another department. Culili was given a termination letter, but he claimed he was not properly notified and that his functions were actually outsourced, constituting unfair labor practice.

    Here’s a step-by-step look at the case’s journey through the legal system:

    1. Labor Arbiter (LA): The LA ruled in favor of Culili, declaring his dismissal illegal and finding ETPI guilty of unfair labor practice. The LA highlighted a prior termination letter (dated December 7, 1998, though not officially served) as evidence of bad faith, suggesting ETPI had already decided to dismiss Culili even before declaring redundancy. The LA also found insufficient proof of redundancy and believed ETPI had contracted out Culili’s work.
    2. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision but reduced the damages awarded.
    3. Court of Appeals (CA): The CA reversed the NLRC’s decision, finding that Culili’s position was indeed redundant and ETPI acted in good faith in implementing its reorganization. The CA acknowledged ETPI’s failure to properly notify DOLE of Culili’s termination, thus finding a procedural due process violation, but deemed the dismissal valid on substantive grounds. The CA ordered separation pay and backwages until the CA decision but removed moral and exemplary damages.
    4. Supreme Court (SC): The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Court of Appeals’ assessment of redundancy and good faith. The SC emphasized the employer’s prerogative to determine job redundancy for business efficiency. The Court quoted:

      This Court has been consistent in holding that the determination of whether or not an employee’s services are still needed or sustainable properly belongs to the employer. Provided there is no violation of law or a showing that the employer was prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act, the soundness or wisdom of this exercise of business judgment is not subject to the discretionary review of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

      However, the SC agreed with the CA that procedural due process was not fully observed, particularly the DOLE notification requirement. The Court stated:

      ETPI does not deny its failure to provide DOLE with a written notice regarding Culili’s termination. It, however, insists that it has complied with the requirement to serve a written notice to Culili…

      Because of this procedural lapse, the SC, citing Agabon and Jaka Food, modified the CA decision. Instead of full backwages, the SC awarded nominal damages of P50,000 to Culili for the procedural violation, in addition to separation pay.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

    Culili v. ETPI offers crucial lessons for both employers and employees in the Philippines regarding redundancy and termination:

    • For Employers: Redundancy is a valid defense, but evidence is key. Companies must demonstrate genuine business necessity and provide clear evidence of redundancy, such as new organizational structures, financial losses, or decreased service demand. Good faith in implementing redundancy programs is also vital and can be shown through transparent communication with employees and unions.
    • For Employers: Procedural Due Process is Non-Negotiable. Even with a valid redundancy, failing to strictly adhere to procedural due process, especially the DOLE notification, has financial consequences. While the dismissal might be upheld as valid, employers will still be liable for nominal damages for procedural lapses.
    • For Employees: Understand your rights in redundancy situations. Employees facing redundancy have the right to separation pay and proper notice. While employers have management prerogatives, employees can challenge dismissals if redundancy is not genuinely proven or if due process is violated. Unfair labor practice claims require substantial evidence of anti-union motivation.
    • Nominal Damages for Procedural Lapses. This case reinforces the principle that even in authorized cause dismissals, procedural violations lead to monetary penalties for employers. Nominal damages serve to penalize non-compliance with due process, even if reinstatement and full backwages are not warranted.

    Key Lessons:

    • Document redundancy thoroughly with organizational charts, financial records, and business justifications.
    • Always provide written notice to both the employee and DOLE at least 30 days before redundancy termination.
    • Engage in transparent communication with employees and unions throughout any restructuring or redundancy program.
    • Employees should seek legal advice if they believe their redundancy dismissal was not genuine or lacked proper procedure.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) about Redundancy Dismissal in the Philippines

    Q1: What exactly is redundancy as a legal ground for dismissal?

    A: Redundancy means your job is no longer needed in the company’s organizational structure. This usually happens when a company downsizes, restructures, or adopts new technology that makes certain roles superfluous.

    Q2: What are my rights if my employer declares my position redundant?

    A: You are entitled to:

    • Separation pay (usually one month’s pay for every year of service, or as stipulated in a CBA).
    • A written notice of termination at least one month before your last day.
    • Proper notification of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) by your employer.

    Q3: Can I be dismissed for redundancy even if the company is profitable?

    A: Yes, redundancy is not solely tied to financial losses. Companies can implement redundancy for efficiency, restructuring, or changes in business strategy, even if profitable. However, the redundancy must be genuinely proven and not a guise for illegal dismissal.

    Q4: What is the difference between separation pay for redundancy and retrenchment?

    A: Both are authorized causes for dismissal. Redundancy is about job positions becoming unnecessary. Retrenchment is to prevent losses. Separation pay is generally higher for redundancy (one month pay per year of service) compared to retrenchment (usually half to one month pay per year of service, depending on the company’s financial situation).

    Q5: What if my employer doesn’t give notice to DOLE? Is my dismissal illegal?

    A: Not necessarily illegal in the sense of reinstatement and full backwages if the redundancy itself is valid. However, failure to notify DOLE is a procedural due process violation. As per Culili v. ETPI and subsequent cases, you may be entitled to nominal damages as compensation for this procedural lapse, in addition to separation pay.

    Q6: What should I do if I believe my redundancy dismissal is unfair or illegal?

    A: Consult with a labor lawyer immediately. Gather all documents related to your employment and termination. You can file a case for illegal dismissal with the NLRC to challenge the legality of the redundancy or any procedural violations.

    Q7: Can I claim unfair labor practice if I am dismissed for redundancy?

    A: Yes, but you need to prove that the redundancy was a pretext to discriminate against union activities or your right to self-organization. Mere contracting out of work after redundancy, without evidence of anti-union motive, is generally not considered unfair labor practice.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor and Employment Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Piercing the Corporate Veil: Holding Parent Companies Liable for Labor Violations in the Philippines

    When Can a Parent Company Be Liable for its Subsidiary’s Labor Violations?

    Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Diosdado Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011

    Imagine working for a company, only to be transferred to another entity seemingly overnight. Then, that new company falters, leaving you jobless. Can you hold the original company accountable? This case explores when Philippine courts will disregard the separate legal identities of companies and hold a parent company liable for the labor violations of its subsidiary.

    Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Diosdado Garcia delves into the complexities of corporate responsibility in labor disputes. The Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which the corporate veil can be pierced, making a parent company liable for the actions of its subsidiary, particularly in cases of unfair labor practices.

    Understanding the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil

    The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy. Philippine law generally recognizes a corporation as a separate legal entity, distinct from its stockholders or parent company. However, this separation isn’t absolute. Courts can disregard this separate personality when it’s used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.

    The Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 11232) recognizes the separate legal personality of corporations. However, jurisprudence allows for exceptions. The Supreme Court has outlined several instances where the corporate veil can be pierced. This includes situations where the corporation is merely an instrumentality, agent, or conduit of another entity.

    Article 248 of the Labor Code is also relevant. It outlines unfair labor practices by employers. Specifically, paragraph (a) prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Paragraph (e) prohibits discrimination in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. These provisions are central to determining if an employer has acted unlawfully.

    The Prince Transport Case: A Story of Employee Rights

    The case began with a group of employees of Prince Transport, Inc. (PTI), a bus company. These employees, including drivers, conductors, mechanics, and inspectors, alleged that PTI engaged in unfair labor practices. The employees claimed that PTI reduced their commissions, leading them to organize meetings to protect their interests. PTI, suspecting the formation of a union, allegedly transferred the employees to a sub-company, Lubas Transport (Lubas).

    The employees argued that even after the transfer, PTI controlled their schedules, identification cards, and salary transactions. Lubas’s operations deteriorated due to PTI’s alleged refusal to maintain and repair the buses, ultimately leading to the employees’ job loss.

    PTI denied these allegations, claiming that the employees voluntarily transferred to Lubas, an independent entity. PTI also denied knowledge of the union’s formation until after the complaint was filed, suggesting the employees’ motive was to avoid eviction from the company bunkhouse.

    The case proceeded through the following stages:

    • Labor Arbiter: Initially ruled in favor of PTI, finding no unfair labor practice and declaring Lubas as the employees’ employer, liable for illegal dismissal.
    • National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, but upheld the finding that Lubas was the employer.
    • Court of Appeals (CA): Reversed the NLRC’s decision, finding PTI guilty of unfair labor practice and ruling that Lubas was a mere instrumentality of PTI.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision. The Court emphasized the following points:

    • PTI decided to transfer employees to Lubas.
    • PTI referred to Lubas as “Lubas operations,” not as a separate entity.
    • PTI “assigned” employees to Lubas instead of formally transferring them.

    The Court quoted the CA, highlighting that “if Lubas were truly a separate entity, how come that it was Prince Transport who made the decision to transfer its employees to the former?” The Court also pointed to a PTI memorandum admitting Lubas was one of its sub-companies. “In addition, PTI, in its letters to its employees who were transferred to Lubas, referred to the latter as its ‘New City Operations Bus,’” the decision noted.

    The Supreme Court also found significant the fact that PTI continued to control the employees’ daily time records, reports, and schedules even after the transfer. This control, coupled with the lack of financial and logistical support for Lubas, demonstrated PTI’s intent to frustrate the employees’ right to organize.

    Practical Implications for Businesses and Employees

    This case serves as a warning to companies attempting to circumvent labor laws by creating shell entities. The ruling reinforces the principle that companies cannot hide behind the separate legal personality of their subsidiaries or sub-companies to avoid labor responsibilities.

    For employees, this case provides recourse against unfair labor practices. It clarifies that parent companies can be held liable if they exert significant control over their subsidiaries and use them to undermine employee rights.

    Key Lessons

    • Control Matters: The extent of control a parent company exerts over its subsidiary is a crucial factor in determining liability.
    • Subterfuge is a Red Flag: Attempts to disguise the true employer-employee relationship will be scrutinized by the courts.
    • Employee Rights are Paramount: The right to self-organization is protected, and employers cannot use corporate structures to suppress this right.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is “piercing the corporate veil”?

    A: It’s a legal doctrine where courts disregard the separate legal personality of a corporation to hold its owners or parent company liable for its actions.

    Q: When can a parent company be held liable for its subsidiary’s actions?

    A: When the subsidiary is merely an instrumentality, agent, or conduit of the parent company, and the corporate structure is used to commit fraud, injustice, or circumvent legal obligations.

    Q: What is considered an unfair labor practice?

    A: Actions by an employer that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, or discriminate against employees based on union membership.

    Q: What evidence is needed to prove that a subsidiary is a mere instrumentality of the parent company?

    A: Evidence of control over the subsidiary’s management, finances, and operations, as well as evidence of a common identity or purpose.

    Q: What can employees do if they suspect their employer is trying to avoid labor laws through a subsidiary?

    A: Gather evidence of the parent company’s control over the subsidiary, consult with a labor lawyer, and file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

    Q: Does the absence of a formal employment contract mean there is no employer-employee relationship?

    A: No. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.

    Q: What remedies are available to employees who are illegally dismissed?

    A: Reinstatement to their former position, payment of backwages, and other benefits.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and unfair labor practices. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Unfair Labor Practices: Employer Liability for Negotiating with a Splinter Union in the Philippines

    When Can an Employer Be Held Liable for Unfair Labor Practices?

    EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS., FFW AND JUANITO S. FACUNDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VS. BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., DIETER J. LONISHEN (PRESIDENT), ASUNCION AMISTOSO (HRD MANAGER), AVELINA REMIGIO AND ANASTACIA VILLAREAL, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 162943, December 06, 2010

    Imagine a company recognizing and negotiating with a group of employees who broke away from the official union, undermining the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This scenario highlights the critical issue of unfair labor practices in the Philippines, specifically when an employer deals with a splinter union while a valid CBA with the legitimate union exists. The Supreme Court case of Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc. delves into this very issue, clarifying the boundaries of permissible employer conduct in labor relations.

    This case revolves around the question of whether the management of Bayer Philippines committed unfair labor practice by negotiating with a splinter group, the Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP), despite having a valid and existing CBA with the Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP). The decision provides valuable insights into the obligations of employers in maintaining fair labor practices and respecting the rights of legitimate labor organizations.

    Understanding Unfair Labor Practices in the Philippines

    The Labor Code of the Philippines defines unfair labor practices as actions by employers or labor organizations that violate the right of employees to self-organization and collective bargaining. These practices are considered unlawful and can lead to administrative and criminal penalties. Article 248 of the Labor Code lists specific acts that constitute unfair labor practices by employers, including:

    • Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
    • Dominating or assisting in the formation or administration of any labor organization.
    • Discriminating in regard to wages, hours of work, or other conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.
    • Dismissing, discharging, or otherwise prejudicing or discriminating against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code.
    • Violating a collective bargaining agreement.

    Article 253 of the Labor Code further emphasizes the duty to bargain collectively, stating: “Where there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party shall terminate or modify such agreement during its lifetime.” This provision underscores the importance of honoring existing CBAs to maintain stability and cooperation between labor and capital.

    The Bayer Philippines Case: A Tug-of-War Between Unions

    The Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP), affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), was the exclusive bargaining agent for Bayer Philippines’ rank-and-file employees. After a bargaining deadlock in 1997, a strike ensued, leading the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. While the dispute was pending, a faction of union members, led by Avelina Remigio, accepted Bayer’s wage-increase proposal without authorization from the union leadership.

    This action created a rift within the union, culminating in Remigio soliciting signatures to disaffiliate from FFW and form a new union, the Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (REUBP). This led to a power struggle between EUBP and REUBP, with both seeking recognition from Bayer and demanding remittance of union dues.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • August 3, 1998: Remigio’s group solicits signatures to disaffiliate from FFW and form REUBP.
    • September 8, 1998: REUBP informs Facundo, FFW, and Bayer of the disaffiliation decision.
    • September 15, 1998: EUBP files an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint against Bayer for non-remittance of union dues.
    • February 9, 1999: Bayer turns over collected union dues to REUBP.
    • December 17, 1999: EUBP files a second ULP complaint, alleging Bayer negotiated with REUBP and violated the CBA.
    • February 21, 2000: Bayer signs a new CBA with REUBP.

    The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether Bayer’s actions constituted unfair labor practice.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting existing CBAs: “An employer should not be allowed to rescind unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified bargaining agent it had previously contracted with, and decide to bargain anew with a different group if there is no legitimate reason for doing so and without first following the proper procedure.”

    The Court further stated that Bayer’s actions demonstrated an anti-EUBP sentiment: “The totality of respondents’ conduct, therefore, reeks with anti-EUBP animus.”

    The Implications for Employers and Unions

    This case serves as a stark reminder to employers of their obligations to respect and uphold existing collective bargaining agreements. Negotiating with a splinter union while a valid CBA is in place can be construed as an act of unfair labor practice, leading to legal repercussions. The ruling reinforces the principle that CBAs are binding contracts that must be honored by both employers and unions.

    Key Lessons

    • Respect Existing CBAs: Employers must adhere to the terms and conditions of valid CBAs.
    • Avoid Dealing with Splinter Unions: Negotiating with a splinter union while a CBA with the legitimate union is in effect can be considered unfair labor practice.
    • Maintain Neutrality: Employers should avoid actions that demonstrate bias or interference in internal union matters.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes an unfair labor practice in the Philippines?

    Unfair labor practices are actions by employers or labor organizations that violate the right of employees to self-organization and collective bargaining, as defined in the Labor Code.

    Can an employer negotiate with a splinter union if there’s a valid CBA with the original union?

    Generally, no. Negotiating with a splinter union while a valid CBA is in place can be considered an unfair labor practice.

    What are the penalties for committing unfair labor practices?

    Penalties can include administrative fines, cease and desist orders, and even criminal charges in certain cases.

    What should a union do if the employer is negotiating with a splinter group?

    The union should file an unfair labor practice complaint with the appropriate labor authorities.

    What is the role of the DOLE in labor disputes?

    The DOLE plays a crucial role in mediating and resolving labor disputes, ensuring compliance with labor laws, and protecting the rights of workers.

    What is the importance of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

    A CBA fosters stability and mutual cooperation between labor and capital and becomes the law between the parties during its period of duration.

    What is the difference between inter-union and intra-union disputes?

    Inter-union disputes are between two or more unions, while intra-union disputes are conflicts within a single union.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Unfair Labor Practices: Understanding the Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Philippines

    When is it Unfair Labor Practice to Refuse to Bargain with a Union?

    G.R. No. 186605, November 17, 2010

    Imagine a scenario where a company refuses to negotiate with its employees’ union, claiming the union no longer represents the majority. This situation can lead to legal battles over unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court case of Central Azucarera De Bais Employees Union-NFL vs. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. tackles this very issue, clarifying when a company’s refusal to bargain constitutes an unfair labor practice.

    This case revolves around a labor dispute where the company, Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. (CAB), refused to continue collective bargaining negotiations with the Central Azucarera De Bais Employees Union-NFL (CABEU-NFL). CAB argued that CABEU-NFL had lost its majority status and that a new union, CABELA, represented the majority of employees. The central legal question is whether CAB’s actions constituted an unfair labor practice.

    The Legal Framework of Collective Bargaining

    In the Philippines, the right to collective bargaining is a cornerstone of labor law, enshrined in the Constitution and further elaborated in the Labor Code. Collective bargaining allows workers to negotiate with their employer as a group, ensuring fair treatment and better working conditions. The Labor Code outlines the procedures and obligations for both employers and employees in this process.

    Article 253 of the Labor Code emphasizes the duty to bargain collectively, stating that when a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) exists, neither party should terminate or modify it during its lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. During this period, both parties must maintain the status quo and continue the existing agreement until a new one is reached.

    Article 248 (g) of the Labor Code specifies that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively. This provision aims to protect the workers’ right to self-organization and prevent employers from undermining the collective bargaining process.

    Example: If a company consistently delays negotiations, refuses to provide necessary information, or makes unreasonable demands, it could be seen as bargaining in bad faith, potentially constituting an unfair labor practice.

    The Story of the Sugar Mill Dispute

    The case began when CABEU-NFL, the bargaining agent for the employees of Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc. (CAB), proposed a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in 2004. Negotiations stalled, leading CABEU-NFL to file a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).

    In 2005, CABEU-NFL requested financial statements from CAB and asked for the resumption of conciliation meetings. CAB responded by stating that CABEU-NFL had lost its majority status due to a disauthorization by a majority of employees, who then formed a new union, CABELA. CAB further claimed to have already concluded a new CBA with CABELA.

    CABEU-NFL filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) due to CAB’s refusal to bargain. The case went through the following stages:

    • Labor Arbiter (LA): Dismissed the complaint, finding that CAB had participated in past negotiations and that CABEU-NFL’s representative, Mr. Saguran, was no longer an employee.
    • National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed the LA’s decision, declaring CAB guilty of ULP for bargaining with CABELA while CABEU-NFL was still the certified bargaining agent.
    • Court of Appeals (CA): Reversed the NLRC’s decision, reinstating the LA’s decision, stating that CABEU-NFL failed to present substantial evidence of ULP.

    The Supreme Court then reviewed the CA’s decision.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that to prove unfair labor practice, it must be shown that the employer was motivated by ill will or bad faith. The Court quoted:

    “For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that CAB was motivated by ill will, “bad faith, or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and, of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety resulted x x x”in suspending negotiations with CABEU-NFL.”

    The Court also stated:

    “Basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. By imputing bad faith to the actuations of CAB, CABEU-NFL has the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support the allegation of unfair labor practice.”

    Practical Implications for Employers and Unions

    This case provides crucial guidance for employers and unions navigating collective bargaining. It underscores that simply refusing to bargain is not automatically an unfair labor practice. The refusal must be driven by bad faith or an intent to undermine the union.

    For employers, this means carefully documenting any loss of majority status by a union and ensuring that any decision to negotiate with a different union is based on verifiable evidence. For unions, it highlights the importance of maintaining clear communication with their members and demonstrating continued majority support.

    Key Lessons:

    • Good Faith is Presumed: The burden of proving bad faith in refusing to bargain lies with the party alleging ULP.
    • Majority Status Matters: An employer’s belief that a union has lost majority status can justify a refusal to bargain, but this belief must be based on credible evidence.
    • Premature Complaints: Filing an ULP complaint while the issue is still pending before the NCMB may be considered premature.

    Hypothetical Example: Imagine a construction company negotiating a CBA with its union. During negotiations, a significant number of workers sign a petition withdrawing their support for the union and forming a new one. If the company then refuses to continue bargaining with the original union and begins negotiations with the new one, this action would likely not be considered an unfair labor practice, provided the company can demonstrate the validity of the petition and the new union’s majority support.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What constitutes ‘refusal to bargain’ under the Labor Code?

    A: Refusal to bargain involves actions that demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in good-faith negotiations, such as consistently delaying meetings, providing misleading information, or imposing unreasonable conditions.

    Q: What evidence is needed to prove that a union has lost its majority status?

    A: Evidence can include a signed petition from a majority of employees, a certification election showing a different union has majority support, or other verifiable documentation demonstrating a shift in employee representation.

    Q: Can an employer be penalized for negotiating with a minority union?

    A: Yes, an employer can be found guilty of unfair labor practice for negotiating with a union that does not represent the majority of employees, especially if a certified bargaining agent already exists.

    Q: What is the role of the NCMB in collective bargaining disputes?

    A: The NCMB provides conciliation and mediation services to help resolve disputes between employers and unions, facilitating negotiations and preventing strikes or lockouts.

    Q: What should an employer do if they believe their employees no longer support the existing union?

    A: The employer should gather verifiable evidence of the shift in support, inform the union of their concerns, and potentially petition the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to conduct a certification election to determine the legitimate bargaining agent.

    Q: What are the penalties for unfair labor practices in the Philippines?

    A: Penalties can include fines, imprisonment, and orders to cease and desist from the unfair labor practice. The employer may also be required to reinstate employees who were unjustly dismissed and pay back wages.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Suspension vs. Termination: Employees’ Right to Separation Pay During Business Downturns

    The Supreme Court clarified the rights of employees during temporary business suspensions that exceed six months. The Court ruled that even if a business suspends operations due to external factors and not necessarily financial losses, employees are entitled to separation pay if the suspension extends beyond six months, effectively resulting in a termination of employment. This decision reinforces the employer’s responsibility to compensate employees when business operations cease, regardless of the reason, ensuring protection during prolonged business disruptions.

    Mining Halt: When Does a Temporary Layoff Trigger Separation Pay?

    Manila Mining Corporation (MMC), engaged in large-scale mining, faced operational challenges when the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) did not renew its tailings permit due to the lack of social acceptability from the local community. Consequently, MMC temporarily shut down its mining operations, leading to the layoff of over 400 employees. The Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Chapter questioned the validity of the layoff, arguing that MMC was not suffering from business losses and was instead trying to avoid collective bargaining. The central legal question revolved around whether the prolonged suspension of operations, due to a permit issue, constituted a termination that entitled employees to separation pay, and whether MMC was guilty of unfair labor practice.

    The Labor Code stipulates the conditions under which employment is not deemed terminated. Article 286 states:

    ART. 286. When employment not deemed terminated. ─ The bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.

    However, this provision is silent on the rights of employees when the suspension exceeds six months. MMC argued that as long as the continued suspension is due to a cause beyond its control, the employment should not be deemed terminated. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the decision to suspend operations ultimately rests with the employer, who, in this case, sought to avert possible financial losses.

    The court referred to Article 283 of the Labor Code, which covers situations of business closure and reduction of personnel:

    ARTICLE 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. – The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

    This provision mandates that employees dismissed due to the cessation of business operations are entitled to separation pay. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that separation pay should be provided even if the closure is not due to losses. MMC’s failure to secure the necessary permit led to the permanent cessation of its business operations, triggering the obligation to provide separation pay.

    Regarding the alleged unfair labor practice, the Court found no ill motive on the part of MMC when it suspended collective bargaining negotiations. Article 252 of the Labor Code defines the duty to bargain collectively:

    ARTICLE 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. – The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreements [and executing a contract incorporating such agreements] if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.

    The Court emphasized that a charge of unfair labor practice requires a demonstration of ill-will, bad faith, or fraud on the part of the employer. The employer must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. In this case, MMC’s request for a suspension of negotiations, due to the operational halt, did not constitute a deliberate avoidance of negotiation. There was no clear evidence of bad faith, as MMC expressed willingness to negotiate once mining operations resumed.

    The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to labor laws that protect employees during business downturns, even when those downturns are triggered by external factors. It also serves as a reminder to employers to act in good faith and to fulfill their obligations to their employees, particularly during times of operational challenges. MMC was still obligated to pay separation pay because the cessation of operations was permanent, regardless of the reason for the halt.

    The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that while the suspension of operations was valid, it did not absolve MMC of its responsibility to provide separation pay to the affected employees.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a temporary business suspension exceeding six months, due to external factors (non-issuance of a permit), constitutes a termination entitling employees to separation pay.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that even if the suspension was due to reasons beyond the employer’s control, employees are entitled to separation pay if the suspension exceeds six months, effectively resulting in termination.
    Why was Manila Mining Corporation unable to continue operations? Manila Mining Corporation was unable to continue operations because the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) did not renew its tailings permit due to a lack of social acceptability from the local community.
    What is Article 286 of the Labor Code? Article 286 of the Labor Code states that a bona fide suspension of business operations for up to six months does not terminate employment. However, it remains silent on situations exceeding six months.
    What is Article 283 of the Labor Code? Article 283 of the Labor Code deals with the closure of establishments and reduction of personnel. It stipulates that employees terminated due to the cessation of business operations are entitled to separation pay.
    Did the Court find Manila Mining Corporation guilty of unfair labor practice? No, the Court did not find Manila Mining Corporation guilty of unfair labor practice, as there was no evidence of ill-will or bad faith in their decision to suspend collective bargaining negotiations.
    What is separation pay? Separation pay is the compensation an employee receives when their employment is terminated due to reasons such as redundancy, retrenchment, or business closure. It is typically equivalent to one month’s pay or one-half month’s pay for every year of service.
    Does the reason for business closure affect the right to separation pay? Even if the business closure is not due to financial losses, employees are still entitled to separation pay, as long as the closure is bona fide and not intended to circumvent the employees’ tenurial rights.
    What was the basis for calculating the separation pay in this case? The separation pay was calculated based on one-half month’s pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six months considered as one whole year.

    In conclusion, this case emphasizes the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations to employees during business suspensions that extend beyond six months. The decision clarifies that employees are entitled to separation pay, reinforcing their protection during prolonged periods of operational challenges and ensuring fair compensation for the loss of employment.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association-Federation of Free Workers Chapter v. Manila Mining Corp., G.R. Nos. 178222-23, September 29, 2010

  • Defining Rank-and-File: Union Membership Eligibility in the Philippines

    In the case of Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the criteria for determining whether employees are considered rank-and-file, and thus eligible for union membership. The Court held that certain employees, including secretaries/clerks and checkers, were improperly excluded from the bargaining unit, emphasizing the importance of their actual duties and access to confidential information, rather than mere job titles. This decision safeguards the rights of employees to self-organization and collective bargaining, ensuring that exclusions from union membership are based on concrete evidence of confidential roles.

    Who’s In and Who’s Out: Deciding Union Membership Eligibility

    Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) and its union, initially Bisig at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Asia-Independent (BLMA-INDEPENDENT), had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that defined the scope of the bargaining unit. A dispute arose when ABI stopped deducting union dues from 81 employees, believing their membership violated the CBA, specifically Article I, which defined the bargaining unit and excluded certain positions. The union argued that this action restrained the employees’ right to self-organization, leading to arbitration.

    The core issue revolved around whether these 81 employees, consisting of QA Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses, Machine Gauge Technicians, checkers, and secretaries/clerks, should be included in the bargaining unit. The Voluntary Arbitrator initially sided with the union, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then had to determine whether these employees truly performed duties that would exclude them from the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

    Article 245 of the Labor Code outlines who is ineligible to join, form, or assist labor organizations. While it explicitly mentions managerial employees, Philippine jurisprudence extends this prohibition to confidential employees. This is because confidential employees, by virtue of their positions, assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and have access to sensitive and highly confidential records. The rationale behind excluding confidential employees is to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to ensure the union’s loyalty. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source of undue advantage. Said employees may act as a spy or spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement.

    The Supreme Court has consistently applied this principle. In Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court deemed division secretaries and staff of General Management, Personnel, and Industrial Relations Department, among others, as confidential employees. Similarly, in Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, legal secretaries were categorized as confidential employees due to their tasks involving legal documents and records. In the present case, the CBA explicitly excluded “Confidential and Executive Secretaries,” prompting ABI to seek the disaffiliation of these employees.

    The Supreme Court scrutinized the actual duties of the secretaries/clerks in question. The court reviewed their job descriptions, noting that their responsibilities primarily involved routine activities such as recording, monitoring, and basic paperwork. While some had additional secretarial tasks like answering phones and filing correspondence, the critical factor was their limited access to genuinely confidential information related to management policies. The Court emphasized that ABI failed to demonstrate that these secretaries/clerks had access to sensitive data that could create a conflict of interest with their union membership.

    The Court contrasted the situation with previous rulings where executive secretaries or division secretaries were excluded due to their access to vital labor information. Because of this lack of access to sensitive data, the Supreme Court determined that these secretaries/clerks, numbering about 40, were indeed rank-and-file employees and not confidential employees. This meant they were eligible for union membership and should not have been excluded from the bargaining unit.

    Regarding the Sampling Inspectors/Inspectresses and the Gauge Machine Technician, the Court acknowledged that they formed part of the Quality Control Staff, a category explicitly excluded by the CBA. However, the Court disagreed with ABI’s assertion that the 20 checkers should also be considered confidential employees simply by virtue of being “quality control staff.” Instead, the Court focused on the actual tasks performed by these checkers.

    The Court found that the checkers, assigned to the storeroom section of the Materials Department, finishing section of the Packaging Department, and decorating and glass sections of the Production Department, performed routine and mechanical tasks related to the delivery of finished products. While quality control might extend to post-production packaging, ABI failed to provide evidence that these checkers were exposed to sensitive, vital, and confidential information about the company’s products. The Court emphasized that allegations alone are insufficient and must be supported by concrete evidence.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the criteria for determining confidential employee status are cumulative. Employees must (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, and (2) do so for individuals who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in labor relations. As the Court pointed out:

    The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule.”

    In this case, there was no evidence that the secretaries/clerks and checkers assisted managerial employees in a confidential capacity or obtained confidential information relating to labor relations policies. Thus, even if they had some exposure to internal business operations, it was not a sufficient basis for excluding them from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. Given these considerations, the Supreme Court ruled that the secretaries/clerks and checkers were not disqualified from union membership. Consequently, the Court addressed the petitioner’s argument that ABI’s unilateral cessation of union dues deduction constituted unfair labor practice. The Court acknowledged that unfair labor practice involves actions that violate workers’ rights to organize or disregard a CBA. However, for an unfair labor practice charge to succeed, there must be evidence of ill will, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct toward labor.

    In this instance, the dispute stemmed from a simple disagreement over interpreting the CBA provision concerning excluded employees. There was no indication that ABI was motivated by anti-union sentiments or intended to undermine its employees’ right to self-organization. Thus, the Court concluded that ABI’s actions did not amount to unfair labor practice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The main issue was whether certain employees (secretaries/clerks and checkers) should be included in the rank-and-file bargaining unit and thus be eligible for union membership. This hinged on whether their roles qualified them as “confidential employees” as defined under labor laws.
    Who are considered confidential employees? Confidential employees are those who assist or act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in labor relations. It is not enough to have access to some internal information; the information must relate to labor relations policies.
    What was the basis for excluding employees from the bargaining unit in the CBA? The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Asia Brewery, Inc. and its union specifically excluded certain positions, including “Confidential and Executive Secretaries” and “Purchasing and Quality Control Staff,” from the rank-and-file bargaining unit. This exclusion was the basis for the company’s decision to stop deducting union dues from the employees in question.
    Why did the company stop deducting union dues from these employees? Asia Brewery, Inc. stopped deducting union dues because it believed that the employees in question fell under the categories of “Confidential and Executive Secretaries” or “Quality Control Staff,” which were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit as per the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The company’s interpretation of the CBA led them to believe that these employees were not eligible for union membership.
    What did the Court consider when determining if the secretaries/clerks were confidential employees? The Court examined the job descriptions of the secretaries/clerks and found that their duties mainly involved routine tasks, recording, monitoring, and basic paperwork. The key factor was that they lacked access to genuinely confidential information related to management policies on labor relations, which is a critical element in determining confidential employee status.
    How did the Court differentiate between the checkers and the Quality Control Staff? The Court noted that while quality control extends to post-production, Asia Brewery, Inc. failed to provide evidence that the checkers were exposed to sensitive, vital, and confidential information about the company’s products. The checkers’ tasks were routine and mechanical, lacking the confidential nature required to exclude them from the bargaining unit.
    What is the significance of Article 245 of the Labor Code in this case? 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. This article is significant as it sets the legal framework for determining who can be excluded from union membership to prevent conflicts of interest.
    Did the Supreme Court find Asia Brewery guilty of unfair labor practice? No, the Supreme Court did not find Asia Brewery guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court determined that the dispute arose from a disagreement in interpreting the CBA provision on excluded employees, and there was no evidence of ill will or anti-union sentiment on the part of the company.

    The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the criteria for determining whether employees are considered rank-and-file and eligible for union membership. By focusing on the actual duties and access to confidential information, the Court reinforced the importance of protecting employees’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. This case serves as a reminder that exclusions from union membership must be based on concrete evidence of confidential roles, rather than mere job titles or assumptions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 162025, August 03, 2010

  • Constructive Dismissal: Redefining Unreasonable Employee Transfers Under Philippine Law

    In Philippine Veterans Bank v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed that an employee’s transfer to a location causing significant personal and financial hardship, without a clear business justification, constitutes constructive dismissal. This ruling underscores the employer’s duty to ensure that transfers are reasonable and do not unduly prejudice employees, reinforcing protections against unfair labor practices.

    When a Branch Manager’s Transfer Becomes a Bank’s Liability: The Constructive Dismissal Question

    This case revolves around Benigno Martinez, the former manager of Philippine Veterans Bank’s Dumaguete branch. Martinez alleged that he was effectively forced to resign following an unreasonable transfer to the bank’s head office in Makati, after a disagreement with his area head. The controversy began when Martinez, concerned about significant deposit withdrawals linked to reports of anomalies among high-ranking bank officials, sought the intervention of a major depositor. This action was misinterpreted by his superior, leading to a directive for Martinez to report to the head office for supposed training. Instead of receiving training, he was assigned clerical tasks, and faced a grueling commute that severely strained his finances, ultimately leading to his resignation.

    The bank, however, contended that Martinez’s transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative, citing a special order that authorized the transfer for branch head training. They argued that the transfer did not entail any change in rank or compensation, and that Martinez had agreed in his employment contract to accept different assignments. Furthermore, the bank claimed that after the training, Martinez was assigned to a sensitive position reconciling book entries, indicating he was not placed on floating status. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with the bank, dismissing Martinez’s complaint. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding that Martinez had been constructively dismissed and awarding him backwages, separation pay, and damages.

    The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing that the unceremonious replacement and the unreasonable transfer amounted to constructive dismissal. The CA highlighted that jurisprudence prohibits transfers that are unreasonable and cause inconvenience or prejudice to employees. They found no compelling reason to justify Martinez’s transfer to Makati City, especially since the same training could have been provided in the Visayas-Mindanao area. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the CA, denying the bank’s petition and upholding the finding of constructive dismissal.

    The Supreme Court addressed the bank’s argument that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction because Martinez was a corporate officer, emphasizing that the bank was estopped from raising this issue belatedly. Estoppel prevents a party from contradicting its previous conduct if that conduct has been relied upon by another party to their detriment. In this case, the bank actively participated in the proceedings before the LA and NLRC without raising the jurisdictional issue, thus forfeiting its right to do so on appeal. As the Court noted,

    It is an undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

    Furthermore, the Court found fault with the certificate of non-forum shopping filed by the bank’s Legal Department Head, as he lacked proper authorization to file the petition for certiorari. Non-forum shopping is the act of filing multiple suits involving the same parties and causes of action in different courts, with the hope of obtaining a favorable decision in one of them. The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping ensures that a party is not engaging in this prohibited practice.

    Turning to the central issue of constructive dismissal, the Court reiterated that factual findings of labor officials are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, the NLRC’s finding, as affirmed by the CA, was deemed to be supported by substantial evidence.

    The Court emphasized that in constructive dismissal cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that its actions, such as the transfer of an employee, are based on valid and legitimate grounds, such as genuine business necessity. The Court referenced previous rulings to emphasize the burden of proof:

    Particularly, for a transfer not to be considered a constructive dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee. Failure of the employer to overcome this burden of proof taints the employee’s transfer as a constructive dismissal.

    The Court found that the bank failed to discharge this burden, highlighting several factors that contributed to the finding of constructive dismissal. First, the bank failed to demonstrate any urgency or genuine business necessity for transferring Martinez to the Makati Head Office. The stated reason of branch head training due to Martinez’s alleged gross inefficiency was undermined by the bank’s failure to present any evidence of such inefficiency. Second, the transfer from Dumaguete to Makati City was deemed unreasonable, inconvenient, and oppressive, given that Martinez and his family resided in Dumaguete City. This placed Martinez in the difficult position of choosing between living apart from his family or incurring additional expenses to bring them to Manila.

    Third, the bank failed to justify why the branch head training had to be conducted in Makati, rather than in the Visayas-Mindanao area. This lack of a valid reason further supported the conclusion that the transfer was not made in good faith. Finally, the Court noted that the order of transfer did not specify the position Martinez would hold after the training, effectively placing him in a “floating” status. While the bank claimed that Martinez was later assigned to a sensitive position in the DUHO Task Force, this assignment was inconsistent with the branch head training he was supposedly undergoing. Reconciling book entries, the task he was allegedly assigned to, is an accounting function, not typically associated with branch head training.

    The Court applied the “reasonable person” test to determine whether constructive dismissal had occurred. The test is:

    The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances.

    Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the hostile and unreasonable working conditions created by the bank justified the finding of constructive dismissal. The combination of the lack of a valid reason for the transfer, the inconvenience and oppression it caused Martinez, and the effective placement in a floating status, all contributed to a work environment that a reasonable person would find intolerable.

    FAQs

    What is constructive dismissal? Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes working conditions so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. It’s treated as an involuntary termination of employment.
    What is management prerogative? Management prerogative refers to the inherent right of employers to manage their business and workforce, including decisions on hiring, firing, and transferring employees. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith and without violating labor laws.
    What factors determine if a transfer is constructive dismissal? A transfer is considered constructive dismissal if it is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and is not based on genuine business necessity. The burden is on the employer to prove the validity of the transfer.
    What is the ‘reasonable person’ test in constructive dismissal cases? The ‘reasonable person’ test asks whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign under the circumstances. It considers the totality of the employer’s actions and their impact on the employee.
    What is the significance of ‘estoppel’ in this case? Estoppel prevented the bank from raising the issue of the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction because it had actively participated in the proceedings without objection. The Court viewed this as a waiver of the right to challenge jurisdiction later.
    What is the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping? The certificate of non-forum shopping is a sworn statement attesting that a party has not filed any other action involving the same issues in another court. It prevents parties from seeking multiple favorable rulings on the same matter.
    What is substantial evidence in labor cases? Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It’s a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but still requires more than mere suspicion.
    What remedies are available to an employee who is constructively dismissed? An employee who is constructively dismissed may be entitled to backwages (compensation from the time of dismissal until reinstatement), separation pay (if reinstatement is not feasible), and damages (moral and exemplary) if the dismissal was attended by bad faith.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder to employers of their obligations to ensure that any transfer of employees is fair, reasonable, and justified by genuine business needs. It reinforces the principle that employees cannot be placed in situations where their working conditions are made so intolerable that resignation becomes the only viable option.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK VS. NLRC, G.R. No. 188882, March 30, 2010

  • Breach of Trust: Justifying Dismissal in Cases of Employee Misconduct

    The Supreme Court held that an employer is justified in dismissing an employee for loss of trust and confidence when there is reasonable ground to believe the employee is responsible for misconduct. This decision emphasizes the importance of honesty and integrity in the workplace, particularly for employees in positions of trust. It serves as a reminder that employers have the right to protect their business interests by terminating employees who betray their trust through fraudulent activities.

    Ticket Recycling Scheme: When Can an Employer Dismiss an Employee Based on Loss of Trust?

    In Renita del Rosario, et al. v. Makati Cinema Square Corporation, several employees of Makati Cinema Square Corporation (MCS), working as ticket sellers and portresses, were accused of engaging in a fraudulent scheme involving the recycling of admission tickets. Following an investigation prompted by the management, the employees were terminated based on loss of trust and confidence. The employees contested their dismissal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove their involvement and that the termination was a retaliatory measure by the employer. This case explores the extent to which an employer can validly dismiss an employee based on loss of trust and confidence, and the standards of evidence required to justify such action.

    The Supreme Court examined the validity of the employees’ dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which permits an employer to terminate employment for causes including “fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer.” The Court clarified that **loss of confidence** is a valid ground for dismissal, particularly when the employee occupies a position of trust or is responsible for handling the employer’s money or property. To justify a dismissal on this ground, the breach of trust must be willful, meaning it was done intentionally, knowingly, and without justifiable excuse.

    The employees argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the ticket recycling scheme, and the employer’s reliance on the NBI’s initial findings was insufficient. However, the Court emphasized that the employer’s decision was not solely based on the NBI investigation. The employer conducted its own inquiry, gathering statements from other employees who provided detailed accounts of the petitioners’ involvement in the fraudulent scheme. These statements, although not direct evidence, provided substantial proof of the employees’ culpability. It’s important to note that:

    In dismissing an employee on the ground of loss of confidence, it is sufficient that the employer has a reasonable ground to believe, based on clearly established facts, that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and the nature of his participation renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.

    The Court acknowledged that the employees were acquitted in the criminal case filed against them. However, it emphasized that the standards of evidence differ between criminal and labor cases. In labor cases, the standard is **substantial evidence**, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard is less stringent than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings. The Court found that the combined testimonies and evidence presented by the employer met the threshold of substantial evidence, justifying the dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence.

    Moreover, the employees alleged that the dismissal was a mere pretext to undermine the union’s efforts to renegotiate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). They also pointed to the separation package offered by the employer as evidence that the employer did not genuinely believe in their guilt. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the employees failed to provide any concrete evidence to support their claims of union-busting. The Court noted in a similar case:

    Petitioners’ accusation of union busting is bereft of any proof. We scanned the records very carefully and failed to discern any evidence to sustain such charge.

    The willingness of the employer to provide a separation package did not negate the validity of the dismissal. The Court reasoned that an employer can still offer separation benefits even when an employee is terminated for cause. In this case, the evidence supported that the company ceased operations and leased their business to another party. As such, the Court found no basis to overturn the CA’s decision, ultimately upholding the employer’s right to dismiss employees for loss of trust and confidence based on substantial evidence of misconduct.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the dismissal of the employees based on loss of trust and confidence due to their alleged involvement in a ticket recycling scheme was valid under the Labor Code.
    What is the legal basis for dismissing an employee due to loss of trust and confidence? Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate an employee for fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in them, provided there is a reasonable basis for the loss of trust.
    What standard of evidence is required to prove loss of trust and confidence in a labor case? The standard of evidence is substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Did the NBI investigation directly implicate the employees in the ticket recycling scheme? While the NBI investigation initially raised concerns about ticket recycling, it did not directly implicate the specific employees who were eventually dismissed. The employer relied on additional evidence gathered internally.
    What type of evidence did the employer use to support the dismissal? The employer used statements from other employees who claimed to have witnessed the dismissed employees participating in the fraudulent scheme. This included detailing dates, times, and amounts related to the scheme.
    How did the employees argue against their dismissal? The employees argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove their involvement, that their dismissal was related to union activities, and that the offer of a separation package suggested the employer did not genuinely believe in their guilt.
    Was the employees’ acquittal in the criminal case relevant to the labor case? The acquittal was not decisive because labor cases require only substantial evidence, a lower standard than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal convictions.
    What was the significance of the employer offering a separation package to the dismissed employees? The Court held that offering a separation package did not invalidate the dismissal because an employer can still provide benefits even when terminating an employee for cause.
    How did the Court address the employees’ claim of union-busting? The Court found that the employees failed to provide any concrete evidence to support their claim of union-busting, and therefore, it did not affect the validity of the dismissal.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining ethical conduct and integrity in the workplace. Loss of trust and confidence can be a valid ground for dismissal when supported by substantial evidence, protecting employers from employee misconduct.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: RENITA DEL ROSARIO vs. MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 170014, July 03, 2009

  • Balancing Labor Rights and Business Realities: Analyzing Redundancy and Strikes in the Hotel Industry

    The Supreme Court ruled that a hotel’s decision to downsize and hire contractual employees was a valid exercise of management prerogative due to documented financial losses. While the union’s strike was procedurally legal, it was deemed substantively illegal because the company’s actions, while initially appearing as unfair labor practices, were justified by the economic circumstances. This case underscores the delicate balance between protecting labor rights and recognizing the legitimate business needs of employers facing financial challenges.

    Hyatt’s Hard Choice: Can a Hotel Strike Back Against Economic Downturns?

    This case arose from a labor dispute between Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc. (HEPI), owner of Hyatt Regency Manila, and Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN). In 2001, the hotel experienced significant financial losses, prompting management to implement cost-cutting measures, including a downsizing program. The Union opposed this, believing it violated their collective bargaining agreement and constituted unfair labor practice (ULP). This disagreement led to a strike, which HEPI then challenged as illegal. The core legal question centered on whether the hotel’s downsizing was a valid exercise of management prerogative, or an unlawful attempt to undermine the Union.

    The legal framework for this case is rooted in Article 283 of the Labor Code, which allows employers to terminate employment due to redundancy or retrenchment, provided certain conditions are met.

    ART. 283. x x x

    The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the worker and the [Department] of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.  A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.

    Retrenchment, according to the Court, involves reducing personnel due to poor financial returns, while redundancy occurs when the number of employees exceeds reasonable business demands. For retrenchment, employers must prove that the losses are real, provide written notice to employees and DOLE, and pay adequate separation pay. Similarly, redundancy requires proving the notice, separation pay, good faith in abolishing positions, and fair criteria in identifying redundancies. The onus of proving these requirements rests on the employer.

    The Supreme Court analyzed the financial report submitted by Sycip Gorres Velayo (SGV) & Co., an independent auditing firm, which indicated significant losses for HEPI in 2001. While the Union argued that the hotel’s net income from operations remained positive, the Court noted that including provisions for rehabilitation and equipment replacement resulted in a substantial deficit. This demonstrated that the hotel was not only experiencing a slump, but operating at a significant loss. Therefore, the cost-cutting measures, including downsizing, were deemed necessary to prevent further financial decline. Moreover, the Court held that the implementation of the downsizing scheme does not preclude the hotel from availing the services of contractual and agency-hired employees, as engaging independent contractors can lead to more economic and efficient methods of production. Therefore, the strike staged by the Union was considered illegal, despite the good faith belief of ULP, because the underlying justification for it lacked substantive validity.

    Despite the illegality of the strike, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Union acted in good faith, believing that HEPI was committing ULP by violating the CBA and hiring contractual workers to replace terminated employees. Given these considerations, the Court reduced the NLRC’s penalty of six months suspension for union officers to two months. This recognizes the employees’ legitimate concerns and balances it against the need to maintain a stable labor environment. The court invalidated the first batch of quitclaims due to lacking details but upheld the second signed during Hyatt’s permanent closure.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Hyatt’s downsizing and hiring of contractual employees constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative or an illegal attempt to undermine the union, thus making the resulting strike legal or illegal.
    What is retrenchment under the Labor Code? Retrenchment is the termination of employment to prevent losses. Employers must prove the losses, provide notice, and pay separation pay.
    What is redundancy under the Labor Code? Redundancy exists when the number of employees exceeds the reasonable needs of the business. Similar to retrenchment, it requires notice and separation pay, along with good faith and fair selection criteria.
    What are the requirements for a legal strike? A legal strike requires a notice of strike filed with the DOLE, a strike vote approved by a majority of union members, and a notice to the DOLE of the strike vote results.
    What made the Union’s strike illegal in this case? Although the Union followed the procedural requirements for a strike, the Court deemed it substantively illegal because it was based on alleged unfair labor practices that were ultimately justified by the company’s financial losses.
    Why did the Supreme Court reduce the suspension of Union officers? The Court reduced the suspension because the Union acted in good faith, believing that Hyatt was committing unfair labor practices. Therefore, a lighter penalty was deemed more appropriate.
    What did the Court say about the quitclaims signed by the employees? The Court invalidated the first batch of quitclaims due to lack of details on compensation. However, it upheld the second batch signed during Hyatt’s closure, as they clearly stated the amounts and were signed in the presence of a DOLE representative.
    Can a company hire contractual employees after downsizing? Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that a company can hire contractual employees after a valid downsizing to improve efficiency and reduce costs, as long as the decision is made in good faith.

    This decision illustrates the complexities of labor law in the Philippines, where courts must balance the protection of workers’ rights with the need for businesses to adapt to economic realities. Employers facing financial difficulties can implement cost-cutting measures, including downsizing, but must adhere to the strict procedural and substantive requirements of the Labor Code. This case reinforces the need for transparency and good faith in all labor-management relations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT-NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES, G.R. No. 165756, June 05, 2009