Philcom Employees Union v. PHGlobal Communications, G.R. No.

144135, July 17,2006

Facts:
 This is a petition for review on the decision of CA which affirms the orders of Sec of
Labor
 Upon the expiration of the CBA between the parties, they started negotiations for the
renewal of their CBA
 While negotiations were ongoing, union filed a notice of strike due to perceived ULP; in
view of the filing of strike, the company suspended negotiations on the CBA which
moved the union to file another strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock
 the two parties undergo conciliation conference; however, while meeting, some union
officers and members staged a strike at company premises
 The Sec of Labor then assumed jurisdiction and ordered the parties to cease and desist
from committing any act that may exacerbate the situation, directing also striking
workers to return to work and to submit their respective position papers
 In its position paper, the union raised the issue of alleged ULP in the following: (1) PABX
transfer and contractualization of PABX service and position, (2) Massive
contractualization, (3) Flexible labor and additional work/function, (4) Disallowance of
union leave intended for union seminar, (5) Misimplementation and/or non-
implementation of employees’s benefits like shoe allowance, driving allowance, etc., (6)
non-payment, discrimination and/or deprivation of overtime, restday work, etc., (7)
economic inducement by promotion during CBA negotiation, (8) Disinformation scheme,
surveillance and interference with union affairs, (9) inadequate transportation allowance,
water and facilities, etc.

-Sec of Labor dismissed ULP charge: (5), (6), and (9) are not within the enumeration provided in
the Labor Code on ULP; contractualization and promotion are valid exercise of management
prerogative; Even if the Philcom’s acts violated the provisions of the CBA, failure to show that
those violations were gross or that there was flagrant or malicious refusal to comply, it will not
constitute ULP
-CA affirmed Sec of Labor Order

Issue:
-Whether the CA decided in way not in accord with the law when it affirmed the order of the Sec
of Labor dismissing the Union’s charges of ULP

Held
-for an employee to claim ULP, the prohibited acts must be those enumerated in the Labor
Code
- (2) Hiring of contractual workers cannot be considered as ULP since the hiring did not threaten
the security of tenure of regular employees or union members
- (1) The contractualization of the PABX service and position were done in the anticipation of the
company to switch to an automatic PABX machine which requires no operator; management is
at liberty to abolish positions which it deems no longer necessary
- (7) The promotions made near or around the time when CBA negotiations were about to held
does not make the company’s action an ULP; these promotions were based on the availability
of the position and the qualification of the employees promoted
-Law on ULP is not intended to deprive the employers of their fundamental right to enforce such
rules for proper and profitable operation of their business
-Other ground (3), (4) and (8), Union failed to provide substantial evidence
Complex Electronics Employees Association v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121315

Facts:
 Complex Electronics was engaged in the manufacture of electronic products
 Complex received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co.,
requiring it to lower its price by 10%
 Complex informed its Lite-On personnel that such request was not feasible as they were
already incurring losses at the present prices
 Complex informed that employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down
the operations of the Lite-on line
 Complex filed a notice of closure with the DOLE and the retrenchment of 97 employees
 Union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB
 Machinery, equipment and other materials used by Complex were transferred to Ionic
Circuit;
-Contention of complex: customers (foreign based companies) ordered this pullout fearing that
the impending strike will render it inoperative
 Complex was compelled to cease operation for lack of equipments
-The union filed a complaint for ULP alleging that the pullout resulted to sudden closure
(amounting to interference with the employee’s right to self organization), and that the President
and other management personnel of Complex were also holding offices at Ionics
-Ionics argued that hiring of some displaced workers of complex was an exercise of
management prerogative and that Ionics is an independent company already existing before the
strike; that the decision to transfer equipments was the decision of the owners who were
common customers of the two companies
-LA: reinstate the 531 employees, pay backwages; if not feasible, separation pay
-NLRC: pay separation pay; excluded Ionics and the president as parties solidarily liable

Issue:
-Whether NLRC erred when it found that Complex was (1) not guilty of illegal closure; (2) when
it excluded Ionics as liable

Held:
-No ULP; Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex;
Ionics was already existing
-Union failed to show that Complex committed runaway shop; that the primary reason for its
closure was due to union activities
Runaway shop – when an industrial plant moved its owners from one location to another
to escape union activities
-The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned by the same or single stockholder is
not a sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate personalities
-Closure becomes necessary since it can no longer engage in production with much needed
machinery and equipment; company being mere consignees of the equipment was without any
recourse but to oblige to customer’s directive

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004

Facts:
 This is a petition for certiorari filed by the Union seeking to nullify the resolutions of SLE
 Standard Charted is a foreign banking corporation doing business in the Phil.
 Petitioner union is the exclusive bargaining agent
  In 1990, the bank and the union signed a five year CBA and renegotiate after 3 years.
Prior to the expiration of the three year period and before the 60 day freedom period, the
union initiated the negotiations. The bank gave a counterproposal.
 The union insisted on the economic provisions; when the bank presented a proposal, the
union declared deadlock and filed a notice of strike with NCMB
 The bank filed a complaint for ULP alleging that the union did not bargain in good faith,
violated the no strike-no lockout clause
 The Sec. of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered the parties to execute a CBA; and
dismissed the complaint for ULP for lack of merit
 The Bank and the Union signed the CBA. Immediately thereafter, wage increase was
effected.
-The union filed this petition asserting that Sec of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the charge of ULP in view of clear evidence in record:
(1) There is interference when Diokno, the bank’s lawyer, suggested the exclusion of Umali, the
president of the federation to which the union was affiliated, from the union’s negotiating panel
and the bank committed
(2) surface bargaining when it submitted only 6 counter-proposals out of the 34 economic
provisions the union made and when the bank refused to make a list of items to include in the
economic package
Surface bargaining is defined as going through the motions of negotiating without any
legal intent to reach an agreement

Issue
-Whether the union was able to substantiate its claim of ULP arising from the Bank’s alleged (1)
interference with its choice of negotiator, (2) surface bargaining

Held
- (1) No, the suggestion made by Diokno does not show that it is an anti-union conduct from
which it can be inferred that the bank consciously adopted such act to yield adverse effects on
the free exercise of the right to self-organization; considering also that such was undertaken
before the commencement of the negotiation and simultaneously with Divinagracia’s, president
of the union, suggestion that the bank lawyers be excluded from its negotiating panel
- (1) the negotiations pushed through, and the complaint was made only after deadlock –
making it clear that such ULP charge was merely an afterthought
- (2) The records show that Bank’s counter-proposals and its intention to retain some provisions
negates the Bank’s unwillingness to bargain
- (2) Duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal; failure to agree did not
amount to ULP for violation of duty to bargain

General Milling Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 146728, February 11, 2004

Facts:
 GMC and General Milling Corp. Independent Union concluded a CBA which included the
issue of representation effective for a term of three years, which will end on 1991 (from
1988)
 a day before the expiration of the CBA, the union sent GMC a proposed CBA, with a
request that a counter-proposal be submitted w/in 10 days
  However, before that, GMC had received collective and individual letters from workers
who stated that they had withdrawn from their union membership, on grounds of
religious affiliation and personal differences
 Believing that the union no longer had standing to negotiate a CBA, GMC did not send
any counter-proposal
 On this matter, the union officers disclaimed any massive disaffiliation or resignation
from the union
 Union filed a complaint against GMC with the NLRC for ULP on the grounds: (1) refusal
to bargain collectively, (2) interference with the right to self-organization and (3)
discrimination
-LA: dismissed the case, union appealed to NLRC
-NLRC: set aside the LA’s decision; ordered GMC to abide by the CBA for a period of 2 years,
from 1991 when original CBA ended to 1993. The duration of CBA insofar as representation is
concerned is 5 years – respondent union remained as the exclusive bargaining agent
-On motion for reconsideration by GMC, NLRC set aside its decision – it found GMC’s doubts
as to the status of the union justified
-Union appealed to CA; CA: set aside the latter NLRC decision
-GMC appealed – asserting that CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it found GMC
guilty of ULP

Issue
Whether employer is guilty of ULP;

Held
-Yes, the law mandates that representation provision of a CBA should last for five years. It is
undisputable that when the union requested renegotiation of the CBA before the expiration, it
was still the certified bargaining agent of the workers, because it was seeking said renegotiation
within 5 years from the date of the effectivity of the CBA
-Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposal, GMC
violated its duty to bargain collectively, making them liable for ULP
-Failure to make a timely reply is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the
union; its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the workers turned out to be utterly
baseless
-As to the GMC’s interference with the employee’s right to self-organization, the records show
that GMC presented the 13 letters of resignation of union members to prove that the union no
longer enjoyed the support of the workers; the ill-timed letters of resignation from the union
members indicate GMC’s attempt to cast doubt on the illegitimate status of the union.

Union Filipino Employees v. NestlePHL, Inc., G.R. Nos. 158930-31, March 3, 2008

Facts:
 Before the impending expiration of the existing CBA between Nestle and UFE-DFA-KMU
(Union Filipino Employees, Drug, Food, and Allied Industries, and Kilusang Mayo Uno),
a letter of intent, informed Nestle of their intent to open new CB Negotiations for the next
3 years
 Nestle acknowledged the receipt of the letter; Nestle underscored its position that:
“Unilateral grants, one-time company grants, company-initiated policies and programs,
which include, but are not limited to retirement pay, incidental straight duty pay and
calling pay premium, are not proper subjects of CBA and shall be excluded therefrom”
  Despite 15 meetings, the parties failed to reach any agreement
 Company requested the NCMB to conduct preventive mediation proceedings but
conciliation nevertheless proved ineffective
-Sec of Labor assumed jurisdiction and order the parties to submit their position papers
-The union argued that Nestle’s refusal to bargain on very important CBA economic provision
constitutes ULP – when it set as a precondition the non-inclusion of retirement plan
-Sec of Labor: dismissed ULP charge
-Union appealed to CA; CA ruled in favor of Nestle – the management’s firm stand against the
issue of the retirement plan did not mean that it was bargaining in bad faith, it had the right to
insist on its position to the point of stalemate.

Issue
Whether a company is guilty of ULP when it consider some economic benefits as unilaterally
granted

Held
-No, the court affirmed the CA ruling
-An employer’s steadfast insistence to exclude a particular substantive provision is no different
from a bargaining representative’s perseverance to include one that they deem of absolute
necessity
- The union merely bases its claim of refusal to bargain on the contents of the letter when the
Nestle underscored its position; such attitude is not tantamount to refusal to bargain
-Nestle’s inclusion in its position paper of its proposals affecting other matters covered by the
CBA negates the claim of refusal to bargain or bargaining in bad faith
-Employers are accorded rights and privileges to assure self-determination and independence
and reasonable return of capital
-Good Faith is always presumed. If the exercise is not for the purpose of circumventing the right
of the employees, such exercise will be upheld