Cases for recit Flashcards
(8 cards)
Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) v. Ferrer-Calleja, et al.
Facts:
Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) sought to exclude 197 employees who are occupying the positions of 1) Supervisor I, II, and III, arguing that they were managerial employees; 2) Employees under confidential/special payrolls; and 3) employees who were not paying Union dues, from voting in the certification election by virtue of their non-membership in the Union and their exclusion from the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement. Despite their objections, the Med-Arbiter and BLR Director allowed the 197 employees’ challenged ballot to be opened and canvassed by the Labor Regional Office. The certification election results favored Mindanao Miners Employees Union- Sandigan ng Manggagawang Filipino (MMEU-Sandigan), which led to its certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Apex Mining Company.
Issue:
Whether or not the BLR Director committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the 197 employees to vote in the certification election despite SPFL’s claims that they were disqualified by law or the existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Ruling:
No, the Supreme Court held that although CBA is the law among the parties, its provisions cannot override what expressly provided by law that only managerial employees are ineligible to join, assist or for any labor organization. Regardless of the challenged employees’ designations, whether they are employed as Supervisors or in the confidential payrolls, if the nature of their job does not fall under the definition of “managerial” as defined in the Labor Code, they are eligible to be members of the bargaining unit and to vote in the certification election. Their right to self-organization must be upheld in the absence of an express provision of law to the contrary. It cannot be curtailed by a collective agreement. In this case, the functions of the questioned positions are not managerial in nature because they only execute approved and established policies leaving little or no discretion at all whether to implement the said policies or not. As regards the employees in the confidential payroll, it was only an allegation and not proven that their jobs are classified as managerial and highly confidential. Neither can payment or non-payment of union dues be the determining factor of whether the challenged employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit since the union shop provision in the CBA applies only to newly hired employees but not to members of the bargaining unit who were not members of the union at the time of the signing of the CBA. It is, therefore, not impossible for employees to be members of the bargaining unit even though they are non-union members or not paying union dues.
International Catholic Migration COmmission, Petitioner, vs Hon. Pura Calleja in her capacity as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations and Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) WFTU, Respondents.
Facts:
This is a consolidation of two cases the facts of which are presented separately.
ICMC Case - G.R. No. 85750
The International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) is an accredited refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It is a non-profit agency engaged in international humanitarian and voluntary work and is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), enjoying Consultative Status II. Its activities parallel those of the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
On July 14, 1986, the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed a Petition for Certification Election among the rank-and-file employees of ICMC before the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). ICMC opposed the petition, invoking its diplomatic immunity.
The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC’s opposition and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. However, upon appeal, the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) reversed the decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election.
IRRI Case - G.R. NO. 89331
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established through a Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. It was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, and non-stock organization, with the primary objective of conducting basic research on the rice plant.
Originally, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a private corporation, making it subject to all Philippine laws and regulations. However, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1620, it was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges, and immunities of an international organization.
The Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa IRRI filed a petition for direct certification election before the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), seeking to represent IRRI’s rank-and-file employees. IRRI opposed the petition, invoking PD 1620, which it claimed conferred upon it immunity from all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine laws.
The Med-Arbiter upheld IRRI’s opposition and dismissed the petition based on PD 1620. However, upon appeal, the BLR Director set aside the Med-Arbiter’s decision, holding that the immunities granted to IRRI do not include exemption from the coverage of Philippine labor laws.
Issue:
Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities extend to immunity from the application of Philippine Labor Laws
Held:
The grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC and IRRI extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws, because it is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes which is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings. . The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
Employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled because each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party. Moreover, pursuant to article IV of memorandum of agreement between the government and ICMC, whenever there is abuse of privilege by ICMC, the government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded.
Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in case of dispute with management as, in fact, there had been organized a forum for better management-employee relationship as evidenced by the formation of the Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein “both management and employees were and still are represented for purposes of maintaining mutual and beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees.” The existence of this Union factually and tellingly belies the argument that Pres. Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status, privileges and immunities of an international organization, deprives its employees of the right to self-organization.
The immunity granted being “from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity,” it is inaccurate to state that a certification election is beyond the scope of that immunity for the reason that it is not a suit against ICMC. A certification election cannot be viewed as an independent or isolated process. It could tugger off a series of events in the collective bargaining process together with related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could inevitably involve ICMC in the “legal process,” which includes “any penal, civil and administrative proceedings.”
Metrolab Industries, Inc. vs. Hon. Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor and Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association - Federation of Free Workers
Facts:
Private respondent, Metro Drug Corporation Employees Association - Federation of Free Workers (Union), represents the rank and file employees of the petitioner, Metrolab, and of MetroDrug, Inc. On December 31, 1990, the CBA between Metrolab and the respondent expired, while negotiations for a new CBA ended in a deadlock. Consequently, the respondent filed a notice of strike against Metrolab and MetroDrug. The parties also failed to settle their dispute before the NCMB.
The Secretary of Labor issued an assumption order over the entire labor dispute. He also issued an order resolving all the disputed items in the CBA and to execute a new one.
During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration filed by the Union, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file employees. So, the Union filed a motion for a cease and desist order to enjoin Metrolab from implementing the mass lay-off. Metrolab contended that the lay-off was only temporary, and within the exercise of its management prerogatives, maintaining that that the company would suffer a yearly gross revenue loss of approximately sixty-six (66) million pesos due to the withdrawal of its principals in the Toll and Contract Manufacturing Department; and that the automation of the manufacture of its product “Eskinol,” will significantly reduce the required number of workers.
Acting Labor Secretary Nieves-Confesor issued a resolution declaring the mass lay - off as illegal and ordered the reinstatement with full back wages of the employees.
Metrolab filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration and a motion for clarification regarding the constitution of the bargaining unit covered by the CBA. On the other hand, after exhaustive negotiations, the parties entered into a new CBA, without prejudice to the outcome of the issues raised in the motions. However, pending resolution of the motions, Metrolab laid off 73 of its employees on grounds of redundancy. Labor
Labor Secretary issued an Omnibus Resolution ruling that the mass layoff of the 94 employees is illegal; and the motion for reconsideration with respect to the consequences of the second wave of layoff affecting 73 employees, was denied, but the legality thereof is referred to the NLRC; and for the clarifications contained in the resolution to be included in the new CBA.
Labor Secretary Confesor also ruled that executive secretaries are excluded from the closed-shop provision of the CBA, not from the bargaining unit.
The union filed for a motion for execution, which was opposed by Metrolab, hence, this petition.
Issue/s:
(a) W/N public respondent Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded her jurisdiction in declaring the temporary layoff illegal and ordering the reinstatement and payment of backwages to the affected employees.
(b) W/N public respondent Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment gravely abused her discretion in including executive secretaries as part of the bargaining unit of rank and file employees.
Ruling:
(a) Legality of the Temporary Layoff.
No. The Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the employer. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to limitations imposed by law.
The case at bench constitutes one of the exceptions. The Secretary of Labor is expressly given the power under the Labor Code to assume jurisdiction labor disputes involving industries and resolve labor disputes involving industries indispensable to national interest.
That Metrolab’s business is of national interest is not disputed. However, after a judicious review of the record, there is no compelling reason to overturn the findings of the Secretary of Labor.
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine that considering their expertise in their respective fields, factual findings of administrative agencies supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and binds this Court. The SOL ruled that any act committed during the pendency of the dispute that tends to give rise to further contentious issues or increase the tensions between the parties should be considered an act of exacerbation. The unilateral action of management is a blatant violation of the injunction of the Office against committing acts which would exacerbate the dispute.
Metrolab and the Union were still in the process of resolving their CBA deadlock when petitioner implemented the subject layoffs. As a result, motions and oppositions were filed diverting the parties’ attention, delaying resolution of the bargaining deadlock and postponing the signing of their new CBA, thereby aggravating the whole conflict.
Also, if Metrolab intended the layoff of the 94 workers to be temporary, it should have plainly stated so in the notices it sent to the affected employees and the Department of Labor and Employment. Here, there is no circumstance at all from which we can infer an intention from MII not to sever the employment relationship permanently. If there was such an intention, MII could have made it very clear in the notices of layoff. But as it were, the notices are couched in a language so uncertain that the only conclusion possible is the permanent termination, not the continuation, of the employment relationship.
(b) Appropriateness of the bargaining unit.
Yes. According to the Resolution of the Court, the managerial employees and the executive secretaries of the President, Executive Vice-President, Vice-President, Vice President for Sales, Personnel Manager, and Director for Corporate Planning who may have access to vital labor relations information or who may otherwise act in a confidential capacity to persons who determine or formulate management policies, are excluded from the bargaining unit. Thus, the provisions of the CBA shall be modified consistently with the foregoing.
On the other hand, the attachment to the CBA shows that the executive secretaries and some personnel in the in the Personnel Department, EDP Staff at Head Office, Payroll Staff at Head Office, Accounting Department at Head Office, and Budget Staff, who because of the nature of their duties and responsibilities need not join the Association as a condition for their employment, and newly-hired secretaries were expressly excluded from the scope of the closed shop provision.
By recognizing the expanded scope of the right to self-organization, the Court’s intention was to delimit the types of employees excluded from the close shop provision, not from the bargaining unit, to executive secretaries only. Otherwise, the conversion of the exclusionary provision to one that refers to the bargaining unit from one that merely refers to the close shop provision would effectively curtail all the organizational rights of executive secretaries.
The exclusion of managerial employees, in accordance with law, must therefore still carry the qualifying phrase
“
from the bargaining unit
”
. In the same manner, the exclusion of executive secretaries should be read together with the qualifying phrase
“
are excluded from membership in the Association.
”
The issue of exclusion has different dimension in the case of MII. In an earlier motion for clarification, MII points out that it has done away with the positions of Executive Vice-President, Vice-President for Sales, and Director for Corporate Planning. Thus, the foregoing group of exclusions is no longer appropriate in its present organizational structure. Nevertheless, there remain MII officer positions for which there may be executive secretaries.
Metrolab maintains that executive secretaries of the General Manager and the executive secretaries of the Quality Assurance Manager, Product Development Manager, Finance Director, Management System Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Director, Engineering Manager, Materials Manager and Production Manager, who are all members of the company’s Management Committee should not only be exempted from the closed-shop provision but should be excluded from membership in the bargaining unit of the rank and file employees as well on grounds that their executive secretaries are confidential employees, having access to “vital labor information.”
Although Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.
Forming part of the bargaining unit, the executive secretaries stand to benefit from any agreement executed between the Union and Metrolab. Such a scenario, thus, gives rise to a potential conflict between personal interests and their duty as confidential employees to act for and in behalf of Metrolab. They do not have to be union members to affect or influence either side.
Finally, confidential employees cannot be classified as rank and file. As previously discussed, the nature of employment of confidential employees is quite distinct from the rank and file, thus, warranting a separate category. Excluding confidential employees from the rank and file bargaining unit, therefore, is not tantamount to discrimination.
Benguet Electric Cooperative v. Calleja
FACTS:
On June 21, 1985 Beneco Worker’s Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (hereinafter referred to as BWLU-ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as BENECO) at Alapang, La Trinidad, Benguet.
BENECO, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron-consumers in the City of Baguio and Benguet Province; and, that the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are not eligible to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing because they are members and joint owners of the cooperative. On September 2, 1985 the med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the petition for certification election. However, the med-arbiter limited the election among the rank and file employees of petitioner who are non-members thereof and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative. Based on the evidence during the hearing the med-arbiter found that there are thirty-seven (37) employees who are not members and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative.
The ordered certification election was held on October 1, 1986. Prior to the conduct thereof, BENECO’s counsel verbally manifested that “the cooperative is protesting that employees who are members-consumers are being allowed to vote when … they are not eligible to be members of any labor union for purposes of collective bargaining; much less, to vote in this certification election.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the member-employees of petitioners are eligible to form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with petitioner; and
Whether or not the Certification Election was null and void.
RULING:
The member-employees are not eligible.
The fact that the members-employees of petitioner do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with petitioner. The Court’s ruling in the Davao City case that members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining was based on the fact that as members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. As such, they cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for “certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners.” [Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, et al., supra.] It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative.
Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.
The Certification Election was null and void.
Article 256 of the Labor Code provides, among others, that:
To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible voters in the unit must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of the valid votes cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit… [Underscoring supplied.]
In this case, it cannot be determined whether or not respondent union was duly elected by the eligible voters of the bargaining unit since even employees who are ineligible to join a labor union within the cooperative because of their membership therein were allowed to vote in the certification election.
Engineering Equipment, Inc. vs. NLRC
FACTS
Ricardo Pili was an employee of Engineering Equipment, Inc. (EEI) from December 11, 1973 until July 18, 1976 when his services were terminated. At that time, he was assigned as a foreman in the Central Bank building construction project of EEI at Quezon City. As a result of the termination of his services, Pili filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against EEI.
There was no settlement reached at the conciliation level and was therefore assigned for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC. During the arbitration proceedings, Pili tried to establish his side.
He contended that he was employed by EEI on December 11, 1973 with a final salary of P650 per month and worked as a field foreman at the Central Bank Building construction project. On July 1976, he received a termination letter dated July 18, 1976, without a formal investigation or opportunity to explain his side reagarding an alleged complaint from workers. He was verbally informed that around 40 workers had protested against him mainlt because there was an accusation that he brought a jungle bolo to the site, which he denied. Despite requesting to see the written complaint and confront his accusers, he was never shown any documents or given a formal hearing. He emphasized that he had no prior disciplinary infractions and even received a merit increase for a good performance for three months before his dismissal.
On the other side, EEI claimed that on June 24, 1976, it received a protest letter from about 40 workers listing eight charges against Pili. The Labor Relations Supervisor investigated the matter and assured Pili a a chance to explain in a formal hearing. However, Pili allegedly threatened the signatories in retaliation which led to his dismissal before the formal investigation could take place. EEI justified the termination based on Pili’s inefficiency, incompetence, alleged gross and habitual neglect of duties.
The NLRC and the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pili, finding his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with full back wages. EEI, however, argued that Pili’s actions had caused labor unrest and that his termination was justified to protect the company’s interests.
ISSUE
Whether Pili’s dismissal was valid and whether he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Pili’s dismissal was valid.
While acknowledging that due process was not strictly followed, the Court held that EEI had valid grounds for dismissal due to Pili’s misconduct and the disruption he cause among workers. The records show that when Pili learned of the letter-complaint by the workers and the on-the-spot investigation being conducted by the labor relations manager of the firm, he threatened the signatories and told them they would be the ones separated from employment. The workers trooped to EEI’s personnel department and threatened to file complaints against the firm with the Ministry of Labor. The unrest was averted when the workers were assured that the investigation of Pili would continue and that their having written a formal complaint would not be taken against them.
There is one important point, however, because NLRC did not categorically rule on whether or not Pili was a managerial employee and, therefore, whether or not the requirement of prior clearance to terminate was necessary.
It is the nature of an employee’s functions and not the nomenclature or title given to his job which determines whether he has rank-and-file orr managerial status. Among the characteristics of managerial rank are: 1) He is not subject to the rigid observance of regular office hours; 2) His work requires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; 3) the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be the standardized in relation to a given period of time; 4) He manages a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the establishment, customarily and regularly directing the work of other employees therein; 5) He either has the authority to hire or discharge other employees or his suggestions and recommendations as to hiring and discharging, advancement and promotion, or other change of status of other employees are given particular weight; and 6) As a rule, he is not paid hourly wages nor subjected to maximum hours of work.
EEI has made out of a satisfactory case as to why it did not seek prior clearance but limited itself to making a belated report. At any rate, the employer has a right to dismiss an employee whose continuance in the service is inimical to the employer’s interest. The law protects the rights of workers but it cannot authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The step taken by EEI in this case was a measure of self-protection. ( the court did not categorically answer it but said it was birderline and they should have decided to get prior clearance)
Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court ruled that EEI had valid grounds to terminate the services of Pili. However, the Court had taken into account to balance the case. Pili had worked for almost three years with EEI. Thus, considering Pili’s tenure, the Court ordered that he be granted full separation pay instead of reinstatement of backwages.
GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS, PETITIONER, VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. (GENERAL SANTOS CITY), THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:
In the late 1990s, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) faced declining profitability due to the Asian economic crisis, lower sales, and rising competition. To cut costs, it implemented three waves of an Early Retirement Program.
A hiring freeze directive was issued, leaving vacancies in various departments, including production, where union members worked. To address this, CCBPI General Santos Plant (Gen San) engaged JLBP Services Corporation (JLBP) for manpower needs, affecting union members.
The General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS (Union) sought to have vacancies filled with permanent employees, but negotiations failed. On January 21, 2002, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), claiming unfair labor practice due to job outsourcing.
CCBPI filed a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the Secretary of Labor, who enjoined the strike and referred the case to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether contracting out jobs to an independent contractor (JLBP) constituted unfair labor practice.
2. Whether CCBPI’s engagement of JLBP amounted to labor-only contracting.
3. Whether outsourcing interfered with the union members’ right to self-organization.
4. Whether the decision to contract out services was a valid exercise of management prerogative given the economic challenges and the hiring freeze.
Ruling:
On the first issue:
The Supreme Court ruled that contracting out services does not automatically constitute unfair labor practice. The Union failed to provide substantial evidence proving that the outsourcing was meant to interfere with union activities or employee rights. The Court held:
“For an act to constitute unfair labor practice, there must be substantial evidence that the employer deliberately interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in their right to self-organization. Such evidence is lacking in this case.”
Article 259 of the Labor Code of the Philippines states: “Unfair labor practices shall mean any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code and no other.” Since CCBPI’s actions did not fall under the specific unfair labor practices listed, no violation occurred.
On the second issue:
The Court found that JLBP was a legitimate independent contractor, as it had substantial capital and exercised control over its workers. Therefore, it was not engaged in labor-only contracting. The Court stated:
“The engagement of JLBP was lawful and did not constitute labor-only contracting, as JLBP carried out its services independently and had substantial capital.”
On the third issue:
Court held that CCBPI’s decision to contract out services was not a union-busting scheme but rather a business decision based on economic conditions. The hiring freeze was applied uniformly across departments and was not intended to target union members. The Court emphasized:
“Management retains the prerogative to determine whether it should outsource certain services, as long as such decision is not aimed at circumventing labor laws or violating employees’ rights.”
On the fourth issue:
The Court affirmed that management prerogative includes the right to reorganize operations, including outsourcing work, provided it is done in good faith and for valid business reasons. The Union failed to show that the outsourcing was designed to undermine their rights.
HACIENDA FATIMA and/or PATRICIO VILLEGAS, ALFONSO VILLEGAS and CRISTINE SEGURA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE, respondents.
Facts:
The workers at Hacienda Fatima, organized under the National Federation of Sugarcane Workers, were engaged in seasonal work at Hacienda Fatima, owned by Patricio Villegas and associated parties (petitioners). After organizing into a union, the respondents were certified as the collective bargaining representative. However, the petitioners refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and subsequently withheld work from the respondents for over a month. In response, the respondents staged a strike, which was settled through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which stipulated negotiations and priorities for union workers.
Despite this agreement, the petitioners allegedly employed tactics to prevent union organizers from entering the premises and failed to provide work assignments to the respondents, leading to another strike. Due to conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another MOA was signed by the parties & they met in a conciliation meeting. When petitioners again reneged on its commitment, complainants filed a complaint alleging unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. Petitioner accused respondents of refusing to work & being choosy in the kind of work they have to perform.
The Labor Arbiter initially ruled that the workers were choosy about work and thus were not illegally dismissed. However, this was overturned by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which found the workers to be regular employees and ordered their reinstatement with back wages and damages. CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.
Issues:
Whether the respondents, as seasonal workers, should be considered regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Whether the petitioners committed unfair labor practices and illegally dismissed the respondents.
Issues:
Whether the respondents, as seasonal workers, should be considered regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Whether the petitioners committed unfair labor practices and illegally dismissed the respondents.
Ruling:
On the first issue:
The Supreme Court held that for workers to be excluded from regular employment classification, it is insufficient that their work is seasonal in nature; they must also be employed only for the duration of one season. The respondents had been employed for multiple seasons over several years, indicating continuous employment and thus qualifying them as regular employees. The Court emphasized that if an employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if intermittently, the law deems the repeated need for its performance as sufficient evidence of its necessity to the business, thereby considering the employment regular concerning such activity while it exists.
On the second issue:
The Court found that the petitioners’ refusal to negotiate a CBA, the use of private armed guards to prevent union organizers from entering the premises, and the failure to provide work assignments to union members constituted unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal. The Court affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering their reinstatement with back wages and awarding moral and exemplary damages due to the petitioners’ bad faith and anti-union activities.
