Meralco v. City Assessor GR No. 166102, Capitol Wireless Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas G.R. no. 180110, Property
Full description
detail of standard electrical service entrance
Full description
MERALCO Service Application Process
BF Homes v Meralco Case DigestFull description
Labor Case
Case DigestFull description
Andriessen workers union scoreFull description
Case Digest
Full ScoreDescrição completa
andriessen workers union
Full description
statcon case
Full description
Labor Standards
digestFull description
corpo digestFull description
digest
case digestFull description
Labor Case DigestFull description
MWU v. Meralco
(2 page case God bless) FACTS
MWU is composed of laborers and employees of Meralco who charged the said company with unfair labor practice, alleging that (1) it discriminatorily discharged Conrado Trinidad by reason of his union activities; and (2) union members were refused overtime compensation enjoyed by non-members. o Finding that Trinidad's discharged was caused by his repeated absences without previous permission and that the members who were denied overtime compensation had signed a waiver in consideration of certain valuable privileges, the lower court dismissed the charges.
ISSUES + RULING
Was MERALCO guilty of unfair labor practice? NO. MWU tries to minimize the cause for Trinidad's dismissal by saying that he was discharged for having absented himself twice. o But the fact is not disputed that previous to those 2 absences without permission, he had already been absent 5 times!!! and warned that should he again absent himself from work without previous permission he would be dismissed from the service. o Repeated absences without permission are something that should not be taken lightly in an enterprise, which powers cities and that disregard of warning against repetition of a series of absences amounts to gross indiscipline. On the second count, MWU contended that since the court had found that some workers worked overtime, it should have directed the respondent to make payment. o Court found that there had been no such discrimination; it had no alternative but to dismiss the charge as without foundation. o If MWU believes and can prove that there has been a violation of the eight-hour labor law, what it should do is to file a charge on that specific point so that adequate proof could be adduced for or against it. o MWU cannot just assume that the waiver of overtime compensation by drivers who preferred to work in the motor pool was against the law, it appearing that such waiver was to be in consideration for certain valuable privileges they were to enjoy, and there is no proof that the value of those privileges did not adequately compensate for such work.
