Topic 14 Unfair Labor Practice

7/24/2019 Topic 14 Unfair Labor Practice

1/21

-

TOPIC 14: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE

GENERAL MILLING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS[G.R. No. 146728, Fe!"#!$ 11, 2%%4&

F#'(s:In its plants located at Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City,General Milling Corporation (GMC) employed 190 worers,w!o were all members o" respondent General Milling

Corporation Independent Labor #nion (union, "or bre$ity),a duly certi%ed bargaining agent& 'n pril *, 19*9, GMCand t!e union concluded a collecti$e bargainingagreement (C+) w!ic! included t!e issue o"representation eecti$e "or a term o" t!ree years& !eC+ was eecti$e "or t!ree years retroacti$e to.ecember 1, 19**& /ence, it would epire on o$ember20, 1991& 'n o$ember 9, 1991, a day be"ore t!eepiration o" t!e C+, t!e union sent GMC a proposedC+, wit! a re3uest t!at a counter-proposal be submittedwit!in ten (10) days&

s early as 'ctober 1991, GMC recei$ed letters "romworers w!o stated t!at t!ey !ad wit!drawn "rom t!eirunion members!ip, on grounds o" religious a4liation andpersonal dierences& +elie$ing t!at t!e union no longer

!ad standing to negotiate a C+, GMC did not send anycounter-proposal& 'n .ecember 15, 1991, GMC wrote aletter to t!e union6s o4cers stating t!at it "elt t!ere wasno basis to negotiate wit! a union w!ic! no longereisted&

'n 7anuary 12, 199, GMC dismissed Marcia umbiga, aunion member, on t!e ground o" incompetence& !eunion protested and re3uested GMC to submit t!e matterto t!e grie$ance procedure pro$ided in t!e C+& GMC,!owe$er, ad$ised t!e union to 8re"er to our letter dated.ecember 15, 1991&8

!us, t!e union %led, on 7uly , 199, a complaint againstGMC wit! t!e LC, rbitration .i$ision, Cebu City& !ecomplaint alleged un"air labor practice on t!e part o" GMC

"or: (1) re"usal to bargain collecti$ely; () inter"erencewit! t!e rig!t to sel"-organi, states:& >2-& Te!/s o- # 'o))e'(*ve #!#*+*+#!ee/e+(.@ ny Collecti$e +argaining greement t!att!e parties may enter into s!all, inso"ar as t!erepresentation aspect is concerned, be "or a term o" %$e(>) years& o petition 3uestioning t!e maAority status o"t!e incumbent bargaining agent s!all be entertained andno certi%cation election s!all be conducted by t!e.epartment o" Labor and Bmployment outside o" t!esity-day period immediately be"ore t!e date o" epiry o"suc! %$e year term o" t!e Collecti$e +argaininggreement& ll ot!er pro$isions o" t!e Collecti$e

+argaining greement s!all be renegotiated not latert!an t!ree (2) years a"ter its eecution&

!e law mandates t!at t!e representation pro$ision o" aC+ s!ould last "or %$e years& !e relation between laborand management s!ould be undisturbed until t!e last 50days o" t!e %"t! year&/ence, w!en t!e union re3uested "or a renegotiation ono$ember 9, 1991, it was still t!e certi%ed collecti$ebargaining agent o" t!e worers, because it was seeing

said renegotiation wit!in > years "rom t!e date o"eecti$ity o" t!e C+ on .ecember 1, 19**& !e union6sproposal was also submitted wit!in t!e prescribed 2-yearperiod "rom t!e date o" eecti$ity o" t!e C+, Aust be"oret!e last day o" said period& It was ob$ious t!at GMC !adno $alid reason to re"use to negotiate in good "ait! wit!t!e union& or re"using to send a counter-proposal to t!eunion and to bargain anew on t!e economic terms o" t!eC+, t!e company committed an un"air labor practiceunder rticle D* o" t!e Labor Code, w!ic! pro$ides t!at:

ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. Itshall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of thefollowing unfair labor practice:

(g To !iolate the "uty to bargaincollecti!ely as prescribe" by this #o"e$

Article 2%2 of the &abor #o"e eluci"ates the meaning ofthe phrase '"uty to bargain collecti!ely' thus:

ART. 2%2. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The "uty to bargain collecti!ely means the performanceof a mutual obligation to meet an" con!ene promptly an"e)pe"itiously in good faith for the purpose ofnegotiating an agreement....

=e !a$e !eld t!at t!ere is no per se test o" good "ait! inbargaining& *oo" faith or ba" faith is an inference to be"rawn from the facts.!e eect o" an employer6s or aunion6s actions indi$idually is not t!e test of goo"+faithbargainingbut the impact of all such occasions oractions consi"ere" as a whole.

#nder rticle >, bot! parties are re3uired to per"ormt!eir mutual obligation to meet and con$ene promptlyand epeditiously in good "ait! "or t!e purpose o"negotiating an agreement&

!e union li$ed up to t!is obligation w!en it presentedproposals "or a new C+ to GMC wit!in t!ree (2) years"rom t!e eecti$ity o" t!e original C+& +ut GMC "ailed inits duty under rticle >& =!at it did was to de$ise aEimsy ecuse, by 3uestioning t!e eistence o" t!e unionand t!e status o" its members!ip to pre$ent anynegotiation&

,roce"ure in #ollecti!e -argainingIt bears stressing t!at t!e procedure in collecti$ebargaining prescribed by t!e Code is mandatory because

o" t!e basic interest o" t!e state in ensuring lastingindustrial peace&

ART. 2%. Procedure in collective bargaining. Thefollowing proce"ures shall be obser!e" in collecti!ebargaining:)))) The other party shall ma/e a reply thereto not laterthan ten (0 calen"ar "ays from receipt of such notice.

GMC6s "ailure to mae a timely reply to t!e proposalspresented by t!e union is indicati$e o" its utter lac o"interest in bargaining wit! t!e union& Its ecuse t!at it "eltt!e union no longer represented t!e worers, was mainlydilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless&


2/21

-

=e !old t!at GMC6s re"usal to mae a counter-proposal tot!e union6s proposal "or C+ negotiation is an indicationo" its bad "ait!& =!ere t!e employer did not e$en bot!erto submit an answer to t!e bargaining proposals o" t!eunion, t!ere is a clear e$asion o" t!e duty to bargaincollecti$ely&ailing to comply wit! t!e mandatory obligation to submita reply to t!e union6s proposals, GMC $iolated its duty tobargain collecti$ely, maing it liable "or un"air labor

practice&

!e "act t!at t!e resignations o" t!e union membersoccurred during t!e pendency o" t!e case be"ore t!elabor arbiter s!ows GMC6s desperate attempts to castdoubt on t!e legitimate status o" t!e union& !e ill-timedletters o" resignation "rom t!e union members indicatet!at GMC !ad inter"ered wit! t!e rig!t o" its employees tosel"-organi


3/21

-

+ranc! o" t!e LC in Manila against t!e #nion on 7une*, 1992& !e +an alleged t!at t!e #nion $iolated itsduty to bargain, as it did not bargain in good "ait!& Itcontended t!at t!e #nion demanded 8sy !ig! economicdemands,8 indicati$e o" blue-sy bargaining&

'n 7uly 1, 1992, t!en F'LB ie$es & Con"esor, pursuantto rticle 52(g) o" t!e Labor Code, issued an 'rderassuming Aurisdiction o$er t!e labor dispute at t!e +an&n order was issued t!at t!e parties eecute a collecti$e

bargaining agreement& !us, t!e +an6s c!arge "or un"airlabor practice w!ic! it originally %led wit! t!e LC butw!ic! is deemed consolidated !erein, is dismissed "orlac o" merit& 'n t!e ot!er !and, t!e #nion6s c!arge "orun"air labor practice is similarly dismissed&!e parties t!en eecuted a Collecti$e +argaininggreement w!erein t!e wage increase was eected andt!e signing bonuses based on t!e increased wage weredistributed to t!e employees co$ered by t!e C+&!e #nion %led t!is petition "or certiorari under ule 5> o"t!e ules o" rocedure&

Iss"es:1& =!et!er or not t!e company is guilty o" un"air laborpractice& =!et!er or not t!e #nion is estopped a"ter it eecuted

wit! t!e company t!e C+2& =!et!er or not t!e #nion is engaged in +lue-Fy+argaining

R")*+:Te #+ *s +o( "*)($ o- ULP.'Interference' un"er Article248 (a of the &abor #o"e toamount to 6&,.!e petitioner asserts t!at respondent committed #L,i&e&, inter"erence in t!e selection o" t!e #nion6snegotiating panel, w!en Cielito .iono, t!e +an6s/uman esource Manager, suggested to t!e #nion6sresident Bddie L& .i$inagracia t!at 7ose & #mali, 7r&,resident o" t!e #+B, be ecluded "rom t!e #nion6snegotiating panel& In support o" its claim, .i$inagraciaeecuted an a4da$it, stating t!at prior to t!ecommencement o" t!e negotiation, .iono approac!ed

!im and suggested t!e eclusion o" #mali "rom t!e#nion6s negotiating panel, and t!at during t!e %rstmeeting, .iono stated t!at t!e negotiation be ept a8"amily aair&8

In 6.7. ,ostal 7er!iceand 9arley a!i"son otor #o.Inc. A;, t!e ational Labor elations +oard !eld t!atupon t!e employer6s re"usal to engage in negotiationswit! t!e #nion "or collecti$e-bargaining contract w!en t!e#nion includes a person w!o is not an employee, or onew!o is a member or an o4cial o" ot!er labororgani


4/21

-

employees, #L under rticle D*(a) in connection wit!rticle D2 o" t!e Labor Code is committed&

7ubstantial !i"ence re1uire" to support the claim of 6&,un"er the &abor #o"e.In order to s!ow t!at t!e employer committed #L undert!e Labor Code, substantial e$idence is re3uired tosupport t!e claim& Fubstantial e$idence !as been de%nedas suc! rele$ant e$idence as a reasonable mind mig!taccept as ade3uate to support a conclusion& In t!e case

at bar, t!e #nion bases its claim o" inter"erence on t!ealleged suggestions o" .iono to eclude #mali "rom t!e#nion6s negotiating panel&

!e circumstances t!at occurred during t!e negotiationdo not s!ow t!at t!e suggestion made by .iono to.i$inagracia is an anti-union conduct "rom w!ic! it can bein"erred t!at t!e +an consciously adopted suc! act toyield ad$erse eects on t!e "ree eercise o" t!e rig!t tosel"-organi1It in$ol$es t!e3uestion o" w!et!er an employer6s conduct demonstratesan unwillingness to bargain in good "ait! or is merely !ardbargaining&>

!e #nion !as not been able to s!ow t!at t!e +an !ad

done acts, bot! at and away "rom t!e bargaining table,w!ic! tend to s!ow t!at it did not want to reac! anagreement wit! t!e #nion or to settle t!e dierencesbetween it and t!e #nion& dmittedly, t!e parties werenot able to agree and reac!ed a deadloc& /owe$er, it is!erein emp!asi1)&=e do not agree t!at t!e #nion is guilty o" #L "orengaging in blue-sy bargaining or maing eaggeratedor unreasonable proposals& !e +an "ailed to s!ow t!att!e economic demands made by t!e #nion wereeaggerated or unreasonable& !e minutes o" t!emeeting s!ow t!at t!e #nion based its economicproposals on data o" ran and %le employees and t!epre$ailing economic bene%ts recei$ed by ban employees

"rom ot!er "oreign bans doing business in t!e !ilippinesand ot!er branc!es o" t!e +an in t!e sian region&=!ile t!e appro$al o" t!e C+ and t!e release o" t!esigning bonus did not estop t!e #nion "rom pursuing itsclaims o" #L against t!e +an, we %nd t!e latter did notengage in #L& =e, liewise, !old t!at t!e #nion is notguilty o" #L&

PILIPPINE CARPET EMPLO9EES ASSOCIATION vs.ON. STO. TOMAS

[G.R. No. 16871, Fe!"#!$ 22, 2%%6&


5/21

-

F#'(s:!ilippine Carpet Manu"acturing Corporation is engagedin t!e business o" manu"acturing wool and yarn carpetsand rugs& !e Corporation also !ad 100J e3uityin$estments in t!e "ollowing corporations: aci%c CarpetMills Corporation (CMC-#F) w!ic! sold carpets andmats on w!olesale basis; aci%c Carpet Manu"acturingCorporation (CMC-Clar) w!ic! manu"actured !and-tu"ted and mac!ine-tu"ted carpets and rugs; and t!e

!ilippine =oolen Fpinning Corporation (=FC) w!ic!manu"actured wool yarn& !e Corporation also owned1?&9>J o" t!e s!ares o" stocs in .I Fecurity and GeneralFer$ices, Inc&, and &0J o" suc! s!ares in t!e Manilaeninsula /otel, Inc& !e Corporation employed D?2employees, 2>> o" w!om were members o" t!e solebargaining unit o" t!e employees t!erein, t!e !ilippineCarpet Bmployees ssociation (#nion "or bre$ity)&

In a letter dated ebruary 10, 00D addressed to t!eCorporation6s ssistant Kice resident "or dministration,Manuel Ie .ia, 00D(Monday)& It stressed t!at t!e 20-day mandatory noticecould not be substituted by paying t!e aectedemployees t!eir respecti$e one mont! salaries&

Corporation alleged t!at based on t!e documentssubmitted to t!e F'LB, it suered a s!arp decline inbusiness in terms o" $olume and income deri$ed since001, caused by t!e sian %nancial crisis and lateraggra$ated by t!e 911 incident in t!e #&F& and t!e

ongoing war in t!e Middle Bast& !e Corporation went onto eplain t!at its income "rom t!e domestic maret andeport operations declined s!arply: "rom its eportoperations, its income o" *,*>>,000&00 in 001 droppedto 2,9?,000&00 in 00; and, t!erea"ter,to >,?95,000&00 in 002&'n 7une 2, 00D, t!e F'LB rendered a .ecision grantingwage increases totaling *,029,220&00 to t!e employees"or t!e t!ree years o" t!e C+& elati$e to increasedbene%ts "or uni"orm, C!ristmas pacage, rice subsidy,and early retirement planseparation pay, t!e F'LBordered t!e retention o" t!e status 3uo& /owe$er, t!eF'LB denied t!e demand o" t!e #nion as to t!e scope o"t!e bargaining unit&

!e F'LB liewise a4rmed t!e termination o" t!e **

employees on t!e ground t!at, i" not "or t!e personnelreduction program&!e #nion t!erea"ter %led a petition"or certiorari wit! t!e C w!ic! renderedAudgmentdismissing t!e petition "or lac o" merit& !eappellate court ruled t!at t!e Corporation "ailed to pro$et!at t!e F'LB committed gra$e abuse o" discretionamounting to ecess or lac o" Aurisdiction in issuing t!edecision&

!e appellate court a4rmed t!e %nding o" t!e F'LB t!att!ere was a slump in t!e demand o" t!e Corporation6sproducts, !olding t!at w!ile low $olume o" wor was notlisted as a $alid ground "or dismissal under rticles *and *2 o" t!e Labor Code o" t!e !ilippines, itne$ert!eless Austi%ed t!e dismissal on t!e ground o"redundancy&Iss"e:

=!et!er or not respondent corporation is guilty o" un"airlabor practice because o" dismissing t!e ?? unionmembers and bust t!e union in t!e process&

R")*+:!e petition is meritorious&

0. Retrenchmentetrenc!ment is an aut!ori


6/21

-

$ulnerable to constitutional attac as taing property"rom one man to gi$e to anot!er& !is is simple enoug!&!e prerogati$e o" an employer to retrenc! its employeesmust be eercised only as a last resort, considering t!at itwill lead to t!e loss o" t!e employees6 li$eli!ood& It isAusti%ed only w!en all ot!er less drastic means !a$e beentried and "ound insu4cient or inade3uate&D*Moreo$er, t!eemployer must pro$e t!e re3uirements "or a $alidretrenc!ment by clear and con$incing e$idence;ot!erwise, said ground "or termination would be

susceptible to abuse by sc!eming employers w!o mig!tbe merely "eigning losses or re$erses in t!eir business$entures in order to ease out employees&!e re3uirements are:

(1) t!at t!e retrenc!ment is reasonablynecessary and liely to pre$ent business lossesw!ic!, i" already incurred, are not merely deminimis, but substantial, serious, actual and real,or i" only epected, are reasonably imminent aspercei$ed obAecti$ely and in good "ait! by t!eemployer; () t!at t!e employer ser$ed writtennotice bot! to t!e employees and to t!e.epartment o" Labor and Bmployment at leastone mont! prior to t!e intended date o"retrenc!ment; (2) t!at t!e employer pays t!e

retrenc!ed employees separation pay e3ui$alentto one mont! pay or at least mont! pay "ore$ery year o" ser$ice, w!ic!e$er is !ig!er; (D)t!at t!e employer eercises its prerogati$e toretrenc! employees in good "ait! "or t!ead$ancement o" its interest and not to de"eat orcircum$ent t!e employees6 rig!t to security o"tenure; and (>) t!at t!e employer used "air andreasonable criteria in ascertaining w!o would bedismissed and w!o would be retained among t!eemployees, suc! as status (i&e&, w!et!er t!ey aretemporary, casual, regular or managerialemployees), e4ciency, seniority, p!ysical%tness, age, and %nancial !ards!ip "or certainworers&

=!at t!e law speas o" is serious business losses or

%nancial re$erses& Fliding incomes or decreasing grossre$enues are not necessarily losses, muc! less seriousbusiness losses wit!in t!e meaning o" t!e law& !e bare"act t!at an employer may !a$e sustained a net loss,suc! loss, per se, absent any ot!er e$idence on its impacton t!e business, nor on epected losses t!at would !a$ebeen incurred !ad operations been continued, may notamount to serious business losses mentioned in t!elaw&>0!e employer must also s!ow t!at its lossesincreased t!roug! a period o" time and t!at t!e conditiono" t!e company will not liely impro$e in t!e near "uture&

2. Re"un"ancyedundancy, on t!e ot!er !and, eists w!en t!e ser$icecapability o" t!e wor "orce is in ecess o" w!at isreasonably needed to meet t!e demands o" t!e

enterprise& redundant position is one renderedsuperEuous by any number o" "actors, suc! as o$er!iringo" worers, decreased $olume o" business, dropping o" aparticular product line pre$iously manu"actured by t!ecompany, or p!asing out o" a ser$ice acti$ity pre$iouslyundertaen by t!e business& #nder t!ese conditions, t!eemployer !as no legal obligation to eep in its payrollmore employees t!an are necessary "or t!e operation o"its business&

or t!e implementation o" a redundancy program to be$alid, t!e employer must comply wit! t!e "ollowingre3uisites: (1) written notice ser$ed on bot! t!eemployees and t!e .epartment o" Labor and

Bmployment at least one mont! prior to t!e intendeddate o" retrenc!ment; () payment o" separation paye3ui$alent to at least one mont! pay "or e$ery year o"ser$ice, w!ic!e$er is !ig!er; (2) good "ait! in abolis!ingt!e redundant positions; and (D) "air and reasonablecriteria in ascertaining w!at positions are to be declaredredundant and accordingly abolis!ed&

. Respon"ent corporation faile" to pro"uce cleare!i"ence for !ali" retrenchment.

espondents "ailed to adduce clear and con$incinge$idence to pro$e t!e conEuence o" t!e essentialre3uisites "or a $alid retrenc!ment o" its employees& =ebelie$e t!at respondents acted in bad "ait! in terminatingt!e employment o" t!e members o" petitioner #nion&

Corporation, in "act, amassed substantial earnings "rom1999 to 002& It "ound no need to appropriate its retainedearnings ecept on Marc! 2, 001, w!en itappropriated 50,000,000&00 to increase productioncapacity&

!e appropriation o" 0,000,000&00 by t!e respondentCorporation on Feptember 15, 00D was made barely %$emont!s a"ter t!e ?? #nion members were dismissed ont!e ground t!at respondent Corporation was suering

"rom 8c!ronic depression&8 Cas! di$idends were liewisedeclared on Marc! 9, 00D, barely two wees a"ter itimplemented its 8retrenc!ment program&8

!ere is liewise no Austi%cation "or t!e !iring o" moret!an 100 new employees, more t!an t!e number o" t!osew!o were retrenc!ed, as well as t!e order aut!ori>9,91?&00 in 001 decreased to 2?,?5D,202&00in 00& /owe$er, suc! decrease ensued becauserespondent Corporation declared cas! di$idends "or its

s!are!olders amounting to *,000,000&00&

It also appears t!at respondent Corporation6s personnelcosts decreased to 9?,9?1,D?9&00& !ere was t!us noreason "or respondent Corporation to implement its8retrenc!ment program8 and terminate t!e **employees&

!e net income o" t!e respondent Corporationo" 29,>>2,0*&00 in 00 decreased to 1,?9,??5&00in 002&It bears stressing, !owe$er, t!at t!e stoc!oldersrecei$ed cas! di$idends in t!e total amounto" 1,>9,D?2&00&

!at respondents acted in bad "ait! in retrenc!ing t!e ??members o" petitioner is buttressed by t!e "act t!at .ia1employees !ad recei$ed t!eir separation compensationpacage w!ile > employees re"used to accept t!e same&

'n May D, 199*, t!e > employees conducted a protestaction wit!in t!e perimeter o" t!e !ig! sc!ool& !e #nion%led a notice o" strie wit! t!e CM+ only on May ?,199*&

'n May 1, 199*, t!e > employees %led a complaint "orun"air labor practice (#L), illegal dismissal and non-

payment o" monetary bene%ts against F7CI be"ore t!eLC w!ic! was doceted as +-IK->-10029-9*-L& !e#nion members alleged t!at t!e closure o" t!e !ig!sc!ool was done in bad "ait! in order to get rid o" t!e#nion and render useless any decision o" t!e F'LB on t!eC+ deadloced issues&

Labor rbiter ntonio dismissed t!e #nion6s complaint "or#L and illegal dismissal w!ile granting F7CI6s petition todeclare t!e strie illegal coupled wit! a declaration o" losso" employment status o" t!e > #nion members in$ol$edin t!e strie&'n 7une *, 00, t!e LC rendered Audgment re$ersingt!e decision o" t!e Labor rbiter& It "ound F7CI guilty o"#L and illegal dismissal and ordered it to reinstate t!e> employees to t!eir "ormer positions wit!out loss o"seniority rig!ts and ot!er bene%ts, and wit! "ull

bacwages&

'n appeal, t!e Court o" ppeals, a4rmed wit!modi%cation t!e decision o" t!e LC w!erein t!e twomont! unwored summer $acation s!ould ecluded&

Iss"e:=!et!er or not Ft& 7o!n Colleges is guilty o" un"air laborpractice t!roug! its act o" closing t!e academy&

R")*+:!e petition lacs merit&

0. #losure. The closure was "one to "efeat the parties?agreement to refer the labor "ispute to the 7


8/21

-

e$ery year o" ser$ice, w!ic!e$er is !ig!er, wit! a "ractiono" at least si (5) mont!s to be considered as a w!oleyear; and (D) cessation o" t!e operation must be bonaB"e& It is not disputed t!at t!e %rst two re3uisites weresatis%ed& !e t!ird re3uisite would !a$e been satis%edwere it not "or t!e re"usal o" t!e !erein pri$aterespondents to accept t!e separation compensationpacage&

!e instant case, t!us, re$ol$es around t!e "ourt!

re3uisite, i.e&, w!et!er F7CI closed t!e !ig! sc!ool in good"ait!&

=!et!er or not t!e closure o" t!e !ig! sc!ool was done ingood "ait! is a 3uestion o" "act and is not re$iewable byt!is Court in a petition "or re$iew on certiorarisa$e "oreceptional circumstances& In %ne, t!e %nding o" t!eLC, w!ic! was a4rmed by t!e Court o" ppeals, t!atF7CI closed t!e !ig! sc!ool in bad "ait! is supported bysubstantial e$idence and is, t!us, binding on t!is Court&Conse3uently, F7CI is liable "or #L and illegal dismissal&

=!et!er F7CI acted in bad "ait! depends on t!e particular"acts as establis!ed by t!e e$idence on record& +ad "ait!is, a"ter all, an in"erence w!ic! must be drawn "rom t!epeculiar circumstances o" a case& !e two decisi$e "actors

in determining w!et!er F7CI acted in bad "ait! are (1) t!etiming o", and reasons "or t!e closure o" t!e !ig! sc!ool,and () t!e timing o", and t!e reasons "or t!e subse3uentopening o" a college and elementary department, and,ultimately, t!e reopening o" t!e !ig! sc!ool departmentby F7CI a"ter only one year "rom its closure&

#nder t!ese circumstances, it is not di4cult to discernt!at t!e closure was done to de"eat t!e parties6agreement to re"er t!e labor dispute to t!e F'LB; tounilaterally end t!e bargaining deadloc; to rendernugatory any decision o" t!e F'LB; and to circum$ent t!e#nion6s rig!t to collecti$e bargaining and its members6rig!t to security o" tenure& +y admitting t!at t!e closurewas due to irreconcilable dierences between t!e #nionand sc!ool management, speci%cally, t!e %nancial aspecto" t!e ongoing C+ negotiations, F7CI in eect admitted

t!at it wanted to end t!e bargaining deadloc andeliminate t!e problem o" dealing wit! t!e demands o" t!e#nion& T*s *s !e'*se)$ 0#( (e L#o! Coe #o!s#+ "+*ses #s "+-#*! )#o! !#'(*'e s*+'e (e +e(e>e'( *s (o e-e#( (e U+*o+3s !*( (o 'o))e'(*ve#!#*+*+&

F7CI contends t!at t!ese circumstances do not establis!its bad "ait! in closing down t!e !ig! sc!ool& at!er, itclaims t!at it was "orced to close down t!e !ig! sc!ooldue to alleged di4cult labor problems t!at it encounteredw!ile dealing wit! t!e #nion since 199>, speci%cally, t!e#nion6s illegal demands in $iolation o" && 5?* or t!e8Go$ernment ssistance to Ftudents and eac!ers inri$ate Bducation ct&8 #nder && 5?*, t!e income "romtuition "ee increase is to be used as "ollows: (a) ?0J o"

t!e tuition "ee s!all go to t!e payment o" salaries, wages,allowances, and ot!er bene%ts o" teac!ing and non-teac!ing personnel, and (b) 0J o" t!e tuition "eeincrease s!all go to t!e impro$ement or moderni


9/21

-

Gi$en t!is denial by t!e #nion, it was incumbent uponF7CI to pro$e t!at t!e students were actually !armed orput in !arm6s way and t!at t!e #nion coerced t!em toAoin t!e protest actions& The reason for this is that theemployer carries the burden of proof to establishthat the closure of the business %as done in goodfaith& In t!e instant case, F7CI !ad t!e burden o" pro$ingt!at, indeed, t!e closure o" t!e sc!ool was necessary toup!old t!e sa"ety and well-being o" t!e students&

!ere is insu4cient e$idence to !old t!at t!e sa"ety andwell-being o" t!e students were endangered andorcompromised, and t!at t!e #nion was responsiblet!ere"or& B$en assuming arguendo t!at t!e students6sa"ety and well-being were Aeopardi


10/21

-

FMI argues t!at t!e allegations in t!e #nion6s complaint%led be"ore t!e Labor rbiter do not establis! a cause o"action "or #L, t!e #nion !a$ing merely contended t!atFMI was guilty t!ereo" wit!out speci"ying t!e ultimate"acts upon w!ic! it was based& It cites Fection 1 o" ule *o" t!e ules o" Court as applying suppletorily to t!eproceedings be"ore t!e Labor rbiter& !us, FMIconcludes t!at t!e Labor rbiter !as no Aurisdiction o$erits complaint&

!e Aurisdiction o" Labor rbiters, enumerated in rticle1? o" t!e Labor Code, includes complaints "or #L&Indeed, t!e particular acts o" #L alleged to !a$e beencommitted by FMI were not speci%ed; neit!er were t!eultimate "acts in support t!ereo"& In its osition aper,!owe$er, t!e #nion detailed t!e particular acts o" #Lattributed to FMI and t!e ultimate "acts in supportt!ereo"&

Fection ?, ule K o" t!e ew ules o" rocedure o" t!eLC pro$ides: Te !o'ee*+s e-o!e (e L#o!A!*(e! s#)) e +o+


11/21

-

and-%le worers in t!e Fto& omas "arm were re"usedentry in t!e company premises; and on 7uly 21, 199>, F=# members were terminated "rom employment& !e"arm manager, super$isors and electrical worers o" t!eFto& omas "arm, w!o were members o" anot!er union,were ne$ert!eless retained by t!e company in its employ&ggrie$ed by t!ese de$elopments, t!e respondent labororgani


12/21

-

"easible considering t!e lengt! o" time t!at t!eemployees !a$e been out o" petitionerRs employ, t!ecompany is ordered to pay t!e illegally dismissed F=#members separation pay e3ui$alent to one (1) mont!pay, or one-!al" (1) mont! pay "or e$ery year o" ser$ice,w!ic!e$er is !ig!er&

!e releases and 3uitclaims, as well as t!e a4da$its o"desistance, signed by t!e employees, w!o were t!ennecessitous men at t!e time o" eecution o" t!e

documents, are declared in$alid and ineecti$e&

GENERAL SANTOS COCA


13/21

-

negotiations; and t!at a collecti$e bargaining agreement(C+) was eecuted only on Marc! 20, 000&

!e .'LB-C !eld t!at t!e !oldo$er aut!ority o"respondent6s incumbent set o" o4cers !ad beenetinguis!ed by $irtue o" t!e eecution o" t!e C+& Itaccordingly ordered t!e conduct o" elections to be placedunder t!e control and super$ision o" its Labor elations.i$ision and subAect to pre-election con"erences&

otwit!standing t!e conduct o" election imposed,respondent called "or a regular election on 7uly 9, 001,wit!out prior notice to t!e .'LB and wit!out t!e conducto" pre-election con"erence, prompting t!e lia


14/21

-

entered between t!e parties& It t!us be!oo$edpetitioners to obser$e t!e terms and conditions t!ereo"bearing on union dues and representation& It is aiomaticin labor relations t!at a C+ entered into by a legitimatelabor organi0,000 and attorney6s "ees in t!e amounto">0,000&

TUNA9 NA PAGAAISA NG MANGGAGA?A SA ASIABRE?ER9 vs. ASIA BRE?ER9, INC.[G.R. No. 162%2@, A". H, 2%1%&

F#'(s:sia +rewery, Inc& (+I) is engaged in t!e manu"acture,sale and distribution o" beer, s!andy, bottled water andglass products& +I entered into a Collecti$e +argaininggreement (C+) wit! +isig at Laas ng mgaManggagawa sa sia-Independent (+LM-I.BB.B),

t!e eclusi$e bargaining representati$e o" +I6s ran-and-%le employees&

rticle I o" t!e C+ de%ned t!e scope o" t!e bargainingunit, as "ollows:Fection 1&ecognition& !e C'MU recogni


15/21

-

!eld t!at petitioner6s 8di$ision secretaries, all Fta o"General Management, ersonnel and Industrial elations.epartment, Fecretaries o" udit, B. and inancialFystems8 are con%dential employees not included wit!int!e ran-and-%le bargaining unit& Barlier, in ier * rrastreN Fte$edoring Fer$ices, Inc& $& oldan-Con"esor, t!e courtdeclared t!at legal secretaries w!o are tased wit!,among ot!ers, t!e typing o" legal documents,memoranda and correspondence, t!e eeping o" recordsand %les, t!e gi$ing o" and recei$ing notices, and suc!

ot!er duties as re3uired by t!e legal personnel o" t!ecorporation, "all under t!e category o" con%dentialemployees and !ence ecluded "rom t!e bargaining unitcomposed o" ran-and-%le employees&

lso considered !a$ing access to 8$ital labor in"ormation8are t!e eecuti$e secretaries o" t!e General Manager andt!e eecuti$e secretaries o" t!e Ouality ssuranceManager, roduct .e$elopment Manager, inance.irector, Management Fystem Manager, /umanesources Manager, Mareting .irector, BngineeringManager, Materials Manager and roduction Manager&

In t!e present case, t!e C+ epressly ecluded8Con%dential and Becuti$e Fecretaries8 "rom t!e ran-and-%le bargaining unit, "or w!ic! reason +I sees t!eir

disa4liation "rom t!e union& etitioner, !owe$er,maintains t!at ecept "or .aisy Laloon, B$elynMabilangan and Lennie Faguan w!o !ad been promotedto mont!ly paid positions, se$eral secretariesclers aredeemed included among t!e ran-and-%le employees o"+I& It is rat!er curious t!at t!ere would be se$eralsecretariesclers "or Aust one (1) departmentdi$isionper"orming tass w!ic! are mostly routine and clerical&+I insisted t!ey "all under t!e 8Con%dential andBecuti$e Fecretaries8 epressly ecluded by t!e C+"rom t!e ran-and-%le bargaining unit&

/owe$er, perusal o" t!e Aob descriptions o" t!esesecretariesclers re$eals t!at t!eir assigned duties andresponsibilities in$ol$e routine acti$ities o" recording andmonitoring, and ot!er paper wors "or t!eir respecti$edepartments w!ile secretarial tass suc! as recei$ing

telep!one calls and %ling o" o4ce correspondence appearto !a$e been commonly imposed as additional duties&

+I "ailed to indicate w!o among t!ese numeroussecretariesclers !a$e access to con%dential datarelating to management policies t!at could gi$e rise topotential conEict o" interest wit! t!eir #nion members!ip&Clearly, t!e rationale under our pre$ious rulings "or t!eeclusion o" eecuti$e secretaries or di$ision secretarieswould !a$e little or no signi%cance considering t!e lac o"or $ery limited access to con%dential in"ormation o" t!esesecretariesclers&

=e t!us !old t!at t!e secretariesclers, numbering about"orty (D0), are ran-and-%le employees and notcon%dential employees&

=it! respect to t!e Fampling InspectorsInspectressesand t!e Gauge Mac!ine ec!nician, t!ere seems nodispute t!at t!ey "orm part o" t!e Ouality Control Ftaw!o, under t!e epress terms o" t!e C+, "all under adistinct category& +ut we disagree wit! +I6s contentiont!at t!e twenty (0) c!ecers are similarly con%dentialemployees being 83uality control sta8 entrusted wit! t!e!andling and custody o" company properties andsensiti$e in"ormation&

gain, t!e Aob descriptions o" t!ese c!ecers assigned int!e storeroom section o" t!e Materials .epartment,%nis!ing section o" t!e acaging .epartment, and t!e

decorating and glass sections o" t!e roduction.epartment plainly s!owed t!at t!ey per"orm routine andmec!anical tass preparatory to t!e deli$ery o" t!e%nis!ed products& Conse3uently, we !old t!at t!e twenty(0) c!ecers may not be considered con%dentialemployees under t!e category o" Ouality Control Ftaw!o were epressly ecluded "rom t!e C+ o" t!e ran-and-%le bargaining unit&

Con%dential employees are de%ned as t!ose w!o (1)

assist or act in a con%dential capacity, () to persons w!o"ormulate, determine, and eectuate managementpolicies in t!e %eld o" labor relations& !e two () criteriaare cumulati$e, and bot! must be met i" an employee isto be considered a con%dential employee @ t!at is, t!econ%dential relations!ip must eist between t!eemployee and !is super$isor, and t!e super$isor must!andle t!e prescribed responsibilities relating to laborrelations& !e eclusion "rom bargaining units o"employees w!o, in t!e normal course o" t!eir duties,become aware o" management policies relating to laborrelations is a principal obAecti$e soug!t to beaccomplis!ed by t!e 8con%dential employee rule&

!ere is no s!owing in t!is case t!at t!esecretariesclers and c!ecers assisted or acted in a

con%dential capacity to managerial employees andobtained con%dential in"ormation relating to laborrelations policies&

ot being con%dential employees, t!e secretariesclersand c!ecers are not dis3uali%ed "rom members!ip in t!e#nion o" respondent6s ran-and-%le employees&

& #n"air labor practice re"ers to 8acts t!at $iolate t!eworers6 rig!t to organi


16/21

-

Ble$en (11) ran-and-%le employees o" MMC, w!o laterbecame complainants be"ore t!e labor arbiter, attendedt!e organi, 001 in "a$or o" MMC$alid "or a period o" si (5) mont!s or until 7uly >, 001&!e LC did not dispute MMC6s claim t!at it !ad timely%led an application "or renewal o" its permit to operate o& ? but t!at t!e renewal permit was not immediatelyreleased by t!e .B-BM+, !ence, MMC was compelledto temporarily s!ut down its milling and miningoperations& /ere, it is once apparent t!at t!e suspension

o" MMC6s mining operations was not due to its "ault norwas it necessitated by %nancial reasons& Fuc! suspensionwas broug!t about by t!e non-issuance o" a permit "ort!e continued operation o" o& ? wit!out w!ic! MMCcannot resume its milling and mining operations& &1PBmp!asis supplied&Q

#n"air labor practice cannot be imputed to MMC since, asruled by t!e Court o" ppeals, t!e call o" MMC "or asuspension o" t!e C+ negotiations cannot be e3uated to

8re"usal to bargain&8

rticle > o" t!e Labor Code de%nes t!e p!rase 8duty tobargain collecti$ely,8 to wit:

ICLB >&Meaning o" duty to bargaincollecti$ely& - !e duty to bargain collecti$elymeans t!e per"ormance o" a mutual obligation tomeet and con$ene promptly and epeditiously ingood "ait! "or t!e purpose o" negotiating anagreement wit! respect to wages, !ours o" worand all ot!er terms and conditions o"employment including proposals "or adAustingany grie$ances or 3uestions arising under suc!agreements Pand eecuting a contractincorporating suc! agreementsQ i" re3uested by

eit!er party but suc! duty does not compel anyparty to agree to a proposal or to mae anyconcession&

or a c!arge o" un"air labor practice to prosper, it must bes!own t!at t!e employer was moti$ated by ill-will, bad"ait! or "raud, or was oppressi$e to labor& !e employermust !a$e acted in a manner contrary to morals, goodcustoms, or public policy causing social !umiliation,wounded "eelings or gra$e aniety& =!ile t!e law maes itan obligation "or t!e employer and t!e employees tobargain collecti$ely wit! eac! ot!er, suc! compulsiondoes not include t!e commitment to precipitately acceptor agree to t!e proposals o" t!e ot!er& ll it contemplatesis t!at bot! parties s!ould approac! t!e negotiation wit!an open mind and mae reasonable eort to reac! acommon ground o" agreement&

!e #nion based its contention on t!e letter re3uest byMMC "or t!e suspension o" t!e collecti$e bargainingnegotiations until it resumes operations& Kerily, it cannotbe said t!at MMC deliberately a$oided t!e negotiation& Itmerely soug!t a suspension and in "act, e$en epressedits willingness to negotiate once t!e mining operationsresume& !ere was $alid reliance on t!e suspension o"mining operations "or t!e suspension, in turn, o" t!e C+negotiation& !e #nion "ailed to pro$e bad "ait! in MMC6sactuations&

PRINCE TRANSPORT ET AL. vs. GARCIA ET AL.[G.R. No. 16721, ;#+"#!$ 12, 2%11&

F#'(s:

rince ransport, Inc& (I) is a company engaged in t!ebusiness o" transporting passengers by land&

espondents alleged in t!eir complaints t!at: t!at t!eywere !ired by petitioner eit!er as dri$ers, conductors,mec!anics or inspectors, ecept "or respondent .iosdadoGarcia, w!o was assigned as 'perations Manager&; inaddition to t!eir regular mont!ly income, t!ey alsorecei$ed commissions e3ui$alent to * to 10J o" t!eirwages&; sometime in 'ctober 199?, t!e said commissionswere reduced to ? to 9J; t!is led respondents and ot!er


17/21

-

employees o" I to !old a series o" meetings to discusst!e protection o" t!eir interests as employees; t!esemeetings led enato Claros, w!o is t!e president o" I,to suspect t!at respondents are about to "orm a union; !emade nown to Garcia !is obAection to t!e "ormation o" aunion; in .ecember 199?, I employees re3uested "or acas! ad$ance, but t!e same was denied by managementw!ic! resulted in demorali, 199*, t!e complaintsubAect o" t!e present petition was already %led; t!at t!ereal moti$e in t!e %ling o" t!e complaints was becauseI ased respondents to $acate t!e bun!ouse w!eret!ey (respondents) and t!eir respecti$e "amilies werestaying because I wanted to reno$ate t!e same&

!e Labor rbiter ruled t!at petitioners are not guilty o"un"air labor practice in t!e absence o" e$idence to s!owt!at t!ey $iolated respondentsR rig!t to sel"-organi


18/21

-

PAR OTEL ET AL. vs. SORIANO ET AL.[G.R. No. 17118, Se(e/e! 1%, 2%12&

F#'(s:Foriano was initially !ired by ar /otel but wastrans"erred to +urgos Corporation&Gon


19/21

-

Fection 1&Condition o" Bmployment& W s acondition o" continued employment in t!eCompany, all regular ran-and-%le employeess!all remain members o" t!e #nion in goodstanding and t!at new employees co$ered byt!e appropriate bargaining unit s!allautomatically become regular employees o" t!eCompany and s!all remain members o" t!e#nion in good standing as a condition o"

continued employment&

!e #nion moreo$er ad$anced t!at sustaining t!eCompanyRs position would easily weaen and ultimatelydestroy t!e "ormer wit! t!e latterRs resort toretrenc!ment andor retirement o" employees and not%lling up t!e $acant regular positions t!roug! t!e !iringo" contractual worers "rom BF', and t!at a possiblescenario could also be created by t!e Company w!erein itcould 8import8 worers "rom BF' during an actual strie&

In countering t!e #nionRs allegations, t!e Companyargued t!at: (a) t!e law epressly allows contracting andsubcontracting arrangements t!roug! .epartment o"Labor and Bmployment (.'LB) 'rder o& 1*-0; (b) t!eengagement o" contractual employees did not, in any

way, preAudice t!e #nion, since not a single employeewas terminated and neit!er did it result in a reduction o"woring !ours nor a reduction or splitting o" t!ebargaining unit; and (c) Fection D, rticle I o" t!e C+merely pro$ides "or t!e de%nition o" t!e categories o"employees and does not put a limitation on t!eCompanyRs rig!t to engage t!e ser$ices o" Aob contractorsor its management prerogati$e to addresstemporaryoccasional needs in its operation&

Iss"e:=!et!er or not t!e $oluntary artbitrator committed anerror in declaring t!at t!e engagement o" BF' is noteeping wit! t!e intent and spirit o" t!e C+ &

R")*+:=e con%rm t!at t!e K ruled on a matter t!at is co$ered

by t!e sole issue submitted "or $oluntary arbitration&esultantly, t!e C did not commit serious error w!en itsustained t!e ruling t!at t!e !iring o" contractualemployees "rom BF' was not in eeping wit! t!e intentand spirit o" t!e C+& Indeed, t!e opinion o" t!e K isgermane to, or, in t!e words o" t!e C, 8interrelated andintertwined wit!,8 t!e sole issue submitted "or resolutionby t!e parties& !is being said, t!e CompanyRs in$ocationo" Fections D and >, ule IK 0 and Fection >, ule KI 1o" t!e e$ised rocedural Guidelines in t!e Conduct o"Koluntary rbitration roceedings dated 'ctober 1>, 00Dissued by t!e CM+ is plainly out o" order&

Liewise, t!e Company cannot %nd solace in its cited caseo" Ludo N Luym Corporation $& Faornido& In Ludo, t!ecompany was engaged in t!e manu"acture o" coconut oil,

corn starc!, glucose and related products& In t!e courseo" its business operations, it engaged t!e arrastreser$ices o" CLF "or t!e loading and unloading o" its%nis!ed products at t!e w!ar"& !e arrastre worersdeployed by CLF to per"orm t!e ser$ices needed weresubse3uently !ired, on dierent dates, as LudoRs regularran-and-%le employees& !erea"ter, said employeesAoined LB#, w!ic! acted as t!e eclusi$e bargaining agento" t!e ran-and-%le employees& =!en LB# entered into aC+ wit! Ludo, pro$iding "or certain bene%ts to t!eemployees (t!e amount o" w!ic! $ary according to t!elengt! o" ser$ice rendered), it re3uested to include in itsmembersR period o" ser$ice t!e time during w!ic! t!eyrendered arrastre ser$ices so t!at t!ey could get !ig!er

bene%ts&

Lastly, t!e Company ept on !arping t!at bot! t!e K andt!e C conceded t!at its engagement o" contractualworers "rom BF' was a $alid eercise o" managementprerogati$e& It is con"used& o emp!asi


20/21

-

F#'(s:etitioners were "ormer union members o" adio!ilippines etwor Bmployees #nion (B#), alegitimate labor organi


21/21

T SOPFITTERS CORP. ET AL. vs. TSOPFITTERS CORP. UNION

[G.R. No. 11714, Fe!"#!$ 26, 2%14&

F#'(s:'n Feptember ?, 00D, t!e N/ F!op%tters Corporation

Gin Oueen Corporation worers union (/F-GO #nion), itso4cers andor members o" /F-GO union, %led t!eirComplaint?"or #n"air Labor ractice (#L) by way o" unionbusting, and Illegal Locout, wit! moral and eemplarydamages and attorney6s "ees, against N/ F!op%ttersCorporation (N/ F!op%tters) and Gin Oueen Corporation(Gin Oueen) (collecti$ely re"erred to as 8petitioners8),be"ore t!e Labor rbiter (L)&

espondents treated N/ F!op%tters and Gin Oueen as asingle entity and t!eir sole employer& In t!eir desire toimpro$e t!eir woring conditions, respondents and ot!eremployees o" petitioners !eld t!eir %rst "ormal meetingon o$ember 2, 002 to discuss t!e "ormation o" aunion& !e "ollowing day or on o$ember D, 002,se$enteen (1?) employees were barred "rom entering

petitioners6 "actory premises located in CastilleAos,Hambales, and ordered to trans"er to N/ F!op%tters6ware!ouse at Fubic +ay reeport Hone (F+H) purportedlybecause o" its epansion& "terwards, t!e said se$enteen(1?) employees were repeatedly ordered to go on "orcedlea$e due to t!e una$ailability o" wor&'n .ecember 1*, 002, t!e .epartment o" Labor andBmployment (.'LB), egional '4ce o& III issued acerti%cate o" registration in "a$or o" /F-GO #nion&'n Marc! D, 00D, /F-GO #nion %led a petition "orcerti%cation election& 'n 7uly 1, 00D, an order wasissued to !old t!e certi%cation election in bot! N/F!op%tters and Gin Oueen& B$entually, t!e certi%cationelection was sc!eduled on 'ctober 11, 00D&Meanw!ile, t!roug! a memorandum, dated ugust 1?,00D, petitioner +en /uang (/uang), .irector "or Gin

Oueen, in"ormed its employees o" t!e epiration o" t!elease contract between Gin Oueen and its lessor inCastilleAos, Hambales and announced t!e relocation o" itso4ce and worers to Cabangan, Hambales& Fome o" t!erespondents, w!o $isited t!e site in Cabangan,disco$ered t!at it was a 8tala!iban8 or grassland& Later,t!e said union o4cers and members were made to woras grass cutters in Cabangan, under t!e super$ision o" acertain +arangay Captain Greg angan& .ue to t!esecircumstances, t!e employees assigned in Cabangan didnot report "or wor& s a conse3uence, t!e /F-GO #nionpresident was made to eplain w!y !e s!ould not beterminated "or insubordination& !e ot!er employees w!oliewise "ailed to report in Cabangan were meted out wit!suspension&'n 'ctober 10, 00D, petitioners sponsored a %eld trip toIba, Hambales, "or its employees& !e o4cers and

members o" t!e /F-GO #nion were purportedly ecluded"rom t!e %eld trip& 'n t!e e$ening o" t!e %eld trip, acertain ngel Madriaga, a sales o4cer o" petitioners,campaigned against t!e union in t!e "ort!comingcerti%cation election&!e "ollowing day or on 'ctober 11, 00D, t!e employeeswere escorted "rom t!e %eld trip to t!e polling center inHambales to cast t!eir $otes& 'n 'ctober 12, 00D, t!e

remaining employees situated at t!e F+H plant castt!eir $otes as well& .ue to t!e !ea$y pressure eerted bypetitioners, t!e $otes "or 8no union8 pre$ailed& 'n'ctober 1D, 00D, t!e /F-GO #nion %led its protest wit!respect to t!e certi%cation election proceedings&

Iss"e:=!et!er or not acts o" un"air labor practices werecommitted by petitioners against respondents

R")*+:As (o (e *ss"e o- ULP, e(*(*o+e!s3 #!"/e+( *s"((e!)$ 0*(o"( /e!*(.

In t!e case at benc!, petitioners are being accused o"$iolations o" paragrap!s (a), (c), and (e) o" rticle >?("ormerly rticle D*) o" t!e Labor Code,to wit:

rticle >?& #n"air labor practices o"employers&@@It s!all be unlaw"ul "or an employerto commit any o" t!e "ollowing un"air laborpractices:

(a) o inter"ere wit!, restrain or coerceemployees in t!e eercise o" t!eir rig!t to sel"-

organi) assigning union members tot!e Cabangan site to wor as grass cutters; and 5) t!een"orcement o" wor on a rotational basis "or unionmembers, all ree o" inter"erence on t!e part o"petitioners&

Indubitably, t!e $arious acts o" petitioners, taentoget!er, reasonably support an in"erence t!at, indeed,suc! were all orc!estrated to restrict respondents6 "reeeercise o" t!eir rig!t to sel"-organi

Documents

Topic 14 Unfair Labor Practice