Pruebas

for the company to deduct union dues and 10% by way of special assessments.

Subsequently, members of the union submitted documents stating that they were withdrawing their authorization such that in the end, there ere 528 objectors and only 272 supporters.

Petitioners question the special assessments. Held:

The failure of the union to comply strictly with the requirements set out by the law invalidates the questioned special assessments. Substantial compliance is not enough in view of the fact that the special assessment will diminish the compensation of the union members.

Under Art. 241, (n), the Union must submit to the company a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general membership meeting called for

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

the purpose. In addition, the secretary of the organization must record the minutes of the meeting which in turn, must include, among others, the list of all the members present as well as the votes cast.

The law would not have specified a general membership meeting had the legislative intent been to allow local meetings in lieu of the latter.

There can be no valid check-off considering that the majority of the union members had already withdrawn their individual authorization.

Violation of Rights of Members

GR: Complaint for violation of rights must be reported

by at least 30% of the union members.

Exception: when the violation directly affects only

one or two members, then only one or two members can report such violation.

Consequence of Violation of Rights

1. Cancellation of the union registration 2. Expulsion of the cULPable officers.

Remedies for Violation of Rights

Litton Mills Employees Association-Kapatiran v. Ferrer-Calleja, GR No. L-78061 (1988)

Despite the practical difficulties in complying with the said procedure, petitioners should have shown substantial compliance with said impeachment procedure, by giving the union officer ample opportunity to defend himself, as contrasted to an outright impeachment, right after he failed to appear before the first and only investigation scheduled. Diamonon v. Dept. of Labor, et. al. GR. No. 108951, 07 March 2000

When the Constitution and by-laws of both unions dictated the remedy for intra-union dispute, this should be resorted to not only to give the grievance machinery or appeals’ body of the union the opportunity to decide the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to administrative or judicial bodies.

The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that when the administrative body, or grievance machinery, as in this case, is afforded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly.

Visitorial Power

ƒ The Secretary or his duly authorized representative can inquire into the financial activities of any labor organization on the basis of a complaint under oath, supported by 20% of the

membership.

II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Art. 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof.

Concept of Unfair Labor Practices

ƒ The aim of labor relations policy is industrial democracy whose realization is most felt in a free collective bargaining or negotiation over terms and conditions of employment. Because self – organization is a prerequisite of industrial democracy, the right to self – organize has been enshrined in the Constitution, and any attack to it – any attack to it – any act intended to defeat or debilitate the right – is regarded by law as an offense.

ƒ The victim of the offense is not just the workers as a body and the well – meaning employees who value peace, but the State as well. Thus, the attack to this constitutional right is considered a crime which carries both civil and criminal liabilities.

Elements of Unfair Labor Practice

1. EER between the offender and the offended. ƒ ULP is negation of a counteraction to the

right to organize which is available only to employees in relation to their employer. No organizational right can be negated or assailed if the employer – employee relationship is absent in the first place.

2. The act done is expressly defined in the Code as an act of unfair labor practice.

ƒ Art. 212(k) defines unfair labor practice as any unfair labor practice as defined by this Code.

ƒ The prohibited acts are all related to the workers’ self – organizational right and to the observance of a collective bargaining agreement. Because ULP is and has to be related to the right to self organization and to the observance of the CBA, it follows that not every unfair act is unfair labor practice. ƒ ULP therefore, refers only to acts opposed to

workers’ right to organize. When committed by the employer, it commonly connotes anti – unionism.

Aspects of Unfair Labor Practice

1. Civil Aspect 2. Criminal Aspect

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

ƒ Civil aspect may include liability for damages and may be passed upon by the labor arbiter.

ƒ Prosecution of ULP as a criminal offense can be initiated only after the finality of judgment in the labor.

ƒ But judgment in the labor case will not serve as evidence of ULP in the criminal case.

Jurisdiction of Criminal Charge of ULP

The criminal charge fall under the concurrent jurisdiction of the MTC or the RTC.

ƒ Only substantial evidence is required in the labor case while proof beyond reasonable doubt is need in the criminal prosecution.

ƒ Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.

Who are Liable when ULP is Committed by Other than a Natural Person

The penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officers of a corporation, partnership, association or entity (Art. 289). If the ULP is committed by a labor organization, the parties liable are the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified such (Art. 249).

Prescription of actions for ULP

The offense prescribes in 1 year (Art. 290). Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. Art. 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

Conditions precedent to the ULP charge

1. The injured party is within the definition of “employee.”

2. The act charged as ULP must fall under the prohibitions of Art. 248 (acts of the employer) or 249 (acts of the union).

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union ns. NLRC, GR No. 125038, 06 November 1997

The Code enumerates the acts or categories of acts considered as ULP. The enumeration does not mean an exhaustive listing of ULP incidents. The Labor Code does not undertake the impossible task of specifying in precise and unmistakable language each incident which constitutes an unfair labor practice. Rather, it leaves to the court the work of applying the law’s general prohibitory language in the

light of indefinite combinations of events which may be charged as violative of its terms.

When There is no ULP: Instance of Valid Exercise of Management Rights

ƒ The law on unfair labor practices is not intended to deprive the employer of his fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules as he honestly believes to be necessary to the proper, productive and profitable operation of his business.

ƒ The only condition imposed upon this control is that it must not be exercised so as to effect a violation of the Act and its several prohibitions. ƒ Where, however, an employer does violate the

Act and is found guilty of the commission of an unfair labor practice, it is no excuse that his conduct was unintentional and innocent.

Rubberworld Phils., Inc., et al. v. NLRC, GR No. 75704, 19 July 1989

As a rule, it is the prerogative of the company to promote, transfer or even demote its employees to other positions when the interests of the company reasonably demand it. Unless there are instances which directly point to interference by the company with the employees right’s to self – organization, the transfer of an employee should be considered within the bounds allowed by law, e.g. where despite his transfer to a lower position, his original rank and salary remained undiminished.

Enriquez v. Zamora, GR No. 51382, 29 December