Cases on Unfair Labor Practice

LABOR LAW REVIEW Atty. Natividad Roma Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes Philippine Christian niversity niversity Colle!e o" La# $INAL PRO%ECT ON LABOR LAW REVIEW

Case Title

Ins'lar Li" e Ass'rance Co.) Ltd. v. Employees* Association NAT et al. +,- CRA /001

N$AIR LABOR PRACTICE Who are the Who are employers& employees&  The are are Life Life Co.,

the What What are are the the "act "acts s o" the the Is there an 'n"air la(or What happened happened to case& practice& I" yes) on #hat the case& !ro'nd& employers  The employees In this case, the Union Ther There e is unfa unfair ir labo labor  r   The decision of the the the Insu Insular lar are are repr repres esen ente ted d subm submit itte ted d a prop propos osal al to the the  practice in this case, Cour Courtt of Indu Indust stri rial al Assu Assura ranc nce e by the Insular Life comp compan anie ies s for for the the modi modie ed d becaus dated because e the the emplo employer  yer  *elations Ltd. Assu ssuranc rance e Co., Co., rene reneal al of thei theirr resp respec ecti ti!e !e refused to bargain with Au"u Au"ust st %+, %+, % % is Ltd. Ltd. Empl Employ oyee ees s bar" bar"ai aini nin" n" cont contrac racts ts her here e the Union. re!e e!ersed rsed and and set set Association-NATU ere due to e#pire. aside, and another is  There is unfair labor entered, orderin" the practice hen the employer respondents to in herein case$ reinstate the dismis dismissed sed member members s %. Notied absent of the the peti petiti tion onin in" " employ employees ees indi!i indi!idua dually lly Unions to their durin" a stri&e folloin" former or unprod unproduct ucti!e i!e e'orts e'orts at comparati!ely similar coll collec ecti ti!e !e bar" bar"ai aini nin" n" positions, ith (hich under the la, is bac&a"es from /une cons consid ider ered ed infer inferen ence ce 0, %1 %1 up to the the ith the ri"ht of   dates of their actual employees to reinstatements. collecti!ely bar"ain)

Cost Costs s a"ai a"ain nst 0. 2he 2hen the the emplo mploye yerrs respondents. attemp attemptt to indi!i indi!idua dually lly ne"otia te te ith the employees employees ith respect respect to the the chan" chan"es es in the the C3A (because under the la, the employer must ne"otia te te ith the employees employees collecti!el collecti!ely, y, and not indi!idually) 4. 2hen the company president rote indi!idual indi!idual letters letters ur"in" ur"in" them to return to or&5 is considere considered d inference inference (be (becaus cause e indi! ndi!id idu ual solicitation of employees ur"i ur"in" n" them them to cease cease any union union acti!i acti!ity ty also constitute constitutes s unfair labor practice) 6. 2hen the company o'ered Christmas bonus to all loyal employees5 shortly shortly after after the union union made a re7uest to bar"ain

the

8ore 8oreo! o!er er,, the the 9upr 9uprem eme e Court stressed the :totality of conduc conductt doctri doctrine; ne; as a test hether the employer en"a en"a"e "ed d in unfa unfair ir labo laborr practice.

N'eva Eci2a Electric Cooperative v. NLRC +,/, CRA 341

 The employers are Nue!a Nue!a Eci
 The employees are are peti petiti tion oner ers s >a
In this case, based on the appreciation of the facts of  the hi"h court, it is therefore therefore e!ident that the employer is indeed "uilty of  unfair labor practice. Ther There e is unfa unfair ir labo labor  r   practice in this case, case, but  the issue is whether or  not moral damages may  be awarded in case there exists unfair labor   practice?

 The labor dispute arose hen the employ employer er promot promoted ed union union o@ce o@cers rs to supe super! r!is isor ory y ran& ran&,, hich caused apprehens apprehension ion in the labor or"aniation. Accordin Accordin" " to the union, union, this is consid consider ered ed harass harassmen mentt hich hich threatened union members and circum circum!en !ented ted the employ employees eesBB 2her 2here e ther there e as as unfa unfair ir security of tenure. labor practice in the dismissal of employees, it is proper to impose moral and e#emplary dama"es on the employer.

ri!at ri!ate e respo responde ndent nt Nue!a Eci
social and nancial position of the o'ended parties and the business and nancial nancial position of the o'ender are ta&en into account.

on 8ar 8arch %4, %4, %0, minus the amount they they rece recei! i!ed ed as retirement retirement pa y. In the e!ent e!ent that that the computed bac&a"es of a concerned pet petitio itione nerr is less less than than the the amoun amountt of socalled retirement pay already rece recei!e i!ed, d, the the di'erence should be treated as ad!ances refundable from his salary until fully repaidF 0. to pay moral and e#emplar e#emplary y dama"es in the amoun amountt of ten ten thousand (%G,GGG.GG)

pesos pesos and !e thousand (,GGG.GG) pesos, respecti!ely, to each of the petitioners ho ere ere ille ille"a "all lly y terminated andHor compulsorily retiredF 4. to pay pay ten ten (%G (%G) of the the tota totall amou amount nt due to peti petiti tion oner ers s as attorneyJs feesF and 6. to pay pay the the cost of suits. *esponde *espondent nt NL*C is =*DE*ED to *EC=8UTE the total mone moneta tary ry bene benet ts s aarded aarded and due to the employees concerned in accordance accordance ith the decision and to submit its

compli complianc ance e there thereon on ith ithin in thir hirty (4G) 4G) days days from from notice notice of  this this deci decisi sion on,, ith ith copies copies furnish furnished ed to the parties.

Balmar Balmar $arms $arms  The employer is >arms, a v. NLRC) +5.R. 3almar >arms, corporation -,6701 or"a or"ani nie ed d and and e#is e#isti tin" n" unde underr the the hil hilip ippi pine ne la , en"a "e "ed ith the plantin" of bananas.

 The employees are are repr repres esen ente ted d by Assoc ssocia iattion ion Labor Union (ALU)

 The labor dispute started hen ALU ALU sent sent lett letter er prop propos osal als s to 3alm 3almar ar as to the the coll collec ecti ti!e !e bar"ainin" a"reement, to hich 3almar responded that it cannot act act fa!or fa!orabl ably y on its its re7u re7ues estt because of the alle"ed EmployeesB EmployeesB Union disa@liation disa@liation ith the ALU.

*E8I9E9 C=N9 C=N9ID IDE* E*ED ED,, the the petition is DI98I99ED for lac& of merit and the assailed resolution is  The Court ruled that A>>I*8ED. 3almarBs refusal to bar"ain collec collecti! ti!ely ely ith ith ALU ALU is a clea clearr act act of unfai unfairr labo laborr practice.

Ther There e is unfa unfair ir labo labor  r   practice in this case, because of the empl employ oyer’ er’s s refu refusa sall to bargain

It can therefore be inferred that that 3alma 3almarB rBs s refu refusa sall to bar"ai bar"ain n collec collecti! ti!ely ely ith ith ALU is a clear act of unfair labor labor practi practice. ce. >ailure ailure of  3almar 3almar to reco" reco"ni nie e ALU ALU because of an alle"ed letter hich as not e!en !eried is a clear act of unfair labor labor practice. Unions  The labor dispute commenced The 2KE*E>= >=*E *E,, upon upon La8as n!  The employer in  The The empl employ oyer er is NOT  NOT  2KE*E case are concerned concerned in this he hen, becau ecause se of se!e se!erral guil fore"oin" 9an!!a!a#an this guilty ty of unfa unfair ir labo labor  r  the

! 9a8a 9a8a(a (aya yan n +LA:A1 v. 9arcelo Enterprises) et al. +;;3 +;;3 CRA CRA 0//1

respondents 8arcelo Enterprises5or companies comprisin" 8arcelo Companies

case case is La&as La&as n" 8an""a"aan" 8a&abayan (LAA9), hilip hilippin pine e 9ocial 9ocial 9ecu 9ecuri rity ty Lab Labor Unio Union n (9 (99LU) 9LU),, and se!eral other unions from 8arcel 8arcelo o Tire Tire and 8arcelo *ubber.

unio unions ns ne"o ne"oti tiati atin" n" ith ith the the  practice, based on these employe employerr re"ar re"ardin din" " the C3A, C3A,  premise: the the mana"e mana"eme ment nt deem deemed ed it nece necess ssar ary y to as& as& for for proo prooff of  %. Ther There e is no e!id !idence ence authoriation from the unions as that 8arcelo as "uilty they ere informed of   of UL UL in as&i as&in" n" the conM ic ictin" cla im im s am on on" returnin returnin" " stri&ers stri&ers to ll unions. up their forms on hen they they are are a!ail a!ailab able le for for  They further su""ested they le or&, since no e!idence for for cert certi ica cati tion on elec electi tion on to sho shoed ed the the fact fact that that resol!e these conMictin" claims 8arcelo companies ere amon" unions, as the see&in" for an cert certi ica cattion ion ele electio ction n ill ill opportunity to dischar"e determine the sole a nd the employees for union e#clu e#clusi! si!e e bar"ai bar"ainin nin" " a"ent a"ent of  acti!ities or discriminate the employer. a"ainst them. mana"ementBs 9tri& 9tri&e e ensued ensued,, and notice notices s to 0. The su" su""est "estio ion n that that the the return to or& ere postedF and uni union le le nece necess ssar ary y the the mana mana"e "eme ment nt re7u re7uir ired ed comp compla lain intt in cour courtt in or&ers to ll up their forms so !ie !ie of the the fact fact that that that they may be "i!en there are se!eral unions schedule to return to or&. claim claimin in" " to repr repres esen entt employees do not cons consti titu tute te fail failur ure e or refusal to bar"ain. As a matt matter er of fact fact,, ther there e e#ists a le"itimate labor repr repres esen enta tati tion on issu issue e

consid considera eratio tions, ns, the petition in L-4101 is dism dismis isse sed d and and the the petition in L-410G is "ranted. The decision of the Court of   Industrial *elations is her hereby eby *EE *EE*9 *9ED ED and 9ET A9IDE and a ne
amon" the unions that is needed needed to be resol resol!ed !ed ith. 4. 2her 2here e ther here e#ist #ists s a le"i le"iti timat mate e issu issue e as to hich se!eral unions is the le"itimate representati!e of   employ employees ees,, it is unfair unfair labor practice for one of  the the union unions s to sta" sta"e e a stri&e stri&e and demand that the employer sits don ith ith it for for coll collec ecti ti!e !e bar"ai bar"ainin nin". ". In the rst place, since there as a labo laborr repr epresen esenta tati tion on issu issue, e, ther there e e#is e#ists ts no duty on the part of the mana"ement to bar"ain collec collecti!e ti!ely ly ith ith La&as La&as on the part of said companies. 6. Lastly, there is no e!idence of bad faith on the part part of employ employers ers,, sinc since e the the comp compan anyB yBs s refusal to accede to the demands of La&as union

is
Cole!io de an %'an de Letran v. Associati Association on o"  Employees and $ac'lty o"  Letran and Eleanor Am( Am(as +/07 CRA 63-1

. Kenc Kence, e, the employ employer er is  aculty aculty of Letran Letran for more than a month, ithout  The Court stressed out in and Eleanor any counter-proposals. counter-proposals. this case that the duty to Ambas, Union bar"ain bar"ain collecti!ely collecti!ely means resident. As a result of the dispute, the the perf or orma nc nce of a Union resident resident as dismissed dismissed mutual mutual obli"ation obli"ation to meet on the "round of   and con!ene promptly and insubordination. e#peditio e#peditiously usly in "ood faith for the purpose of   ne"otiatin ne"otiatin" " an a"reement a"reement incl includ udin in" " prop propos osal als s for for ad
9econd, employerBs lac& of  interest interest in bar"ainin" bar"ainin" ith the union is a clear !iolation of the Labor Code, spec speci ica call lly y Arti Articl cle e 0G 0G hich "o!erns the proc proced edur ure e in coll collec ecti ti!e !e bar"ainin", a nd the companyBs refusal to ma&e coun counte terr-pro -propo posal sal to the the unionBs proposed C3A is an indication of bad faith. LetranBs LetranBs lac& of interest in bar"ainin" is ob!ious in its failu failure re to ma&e ma&e a time timely ly repl eply to the the prop propos osal als s pres presen ente ted d by the the latt latter er.. 8ore 8ore than than a mont month h afte afterr the proposals ere submit submitted ted,, petiti petitione onerr still still had not made any counterprop proposa osals ls.. This This inac inacti tion on prompted prompted the union to le its second notice of stri&e. 8oreo!er, hen Letran did not bother to e!en submit an anser to the bar"ainin" proposals of the

unio union, n, ther there e clear learly ly is e!asion of duty to bar"ain collecti!ely. Unli&e La&as !ersus 8arcela, there is no le"itimate labor representation issue in this case.

am amahan ahan n! 9an!!a!a#a sa Band Bandol olin ino o et al. v. NLRC NLRC +5.R. ;/6;=61

Employer in this case is 3andolino 3andolino 9hoes Corporation. ?er ?erman man, Aida ida a nd 8imi Alcan lcanta tara ra are are oners of   3andolino 3andolino 9hoes Corporation

Employees Employees in this case case are are form former er employees of   3andol 3andolino ino 9hoes 9hoes and and memb member ers s of  union 9amahan n" 8an" 8an""a "a"a "aa a sa 3andolino.

In this this case, case, the labor dispute dispute started hen petitioners >ranco, >lor >lore encio ncio and and *eyes eyes er ere dire direct cted ed to ta&e ta&e a to- to-ee ee& & lea!e lea!e beca becaus use e of a stri stri&e &e at 9hoemart, 9hoemart, 3andolinoBs 3andolinoBs bi""est bi""est customer.

Lastly, AmbasB ri"ht to selfor"ani or"aniat ation ion must must not be interfered ith by Letran by ille ille"a "all lly y dism dismis issi sin" n" the the Union resident ithout
Later Later that that day >ranco >ranco and his ife ere called to the personnel personnel mana"erBs o@ce and as told that >ranco had been dism dismis isse sed d on the the "rou "round nd of  failure to di!ul"e the names of  the union members and

E!en disre"ardin" e!idence of ille"al conditions imposed by pri!ate respondents for petitionerBs retur return n to or&, or&, there there as subs ta ta nt ntia l e!idence remai emain nin" in" in recor ecord d to

in W
or"aniers. or"aniers.

sustain sustain the labor arbiterBs arbiterBs pay and decision tha t pri!a te te bac&a"es. respo responde ndents nts are "uilty "uilty of  unfair labor practice.

full

 There ere e!idences to the e'ect that >ranco >ranco had been as&ed to disclose the names of members of the union a nd that the mana" mana"em emen entt had had shon shon int interes erestt In unio unioni nii in n" acti!ities of the petitioners. It also also appea appears rs that that only only alle" alle"ed ed memb member ers s of the the union ere put on :rotat otatio ion n;. The The Lab Labor ArbiterBs obser!ation durin" the the heari hearin" n" that that pri! pri!at ate e resp respon onde dent nts s had had sho shon n hostility toards petitioners for their union acti!ities is a determination of fact hich is based on the totality of  pri!a te te respondentsB conduct, hich indicates an anti-union bias. employer  The employees  The C3A beteen 9t. /ohn and Ther t. %ohn  The There e is unfa unfair ir Colle!es v. t. herein is 9t. /ohn concerned are the the Union as about to e#pire.  practice in this

labo labor  r  W
the

 %ohn Academy $ac' ac'lty lty and and Employees nion +5.R. ;4-3=/1

Colle"es, a 1G teac teachi hin" n" and and corporation non-teachin" hich hich ons ons and pers person onne nell of the the operates 9t. /ohn company ho are Academy. memb member ers s of 9t. 9t.  /ohn Academy >aculty and Employees Union

Durin" the ne"otiations, 9t. /ohn re
becaus because e the the emplo employer  yer  may may not not unil unilat ater eral ally  ly  close close its establish establishmen ment  t  on the pretext that the demands demands of employee employees s are excessi%e.

 The Labor Code does not  To  To end the stri&e, both parties author authorie ie its employe employerr to a"reed a"reed to refer refer the matter matter to close its establishme establishment nt on the 9ecretary of Labor. the the "rou "round nd of ille ille"a "all or e#cessi!e e#cessi!e demands of the Koe!er, after the 9ecretary of  Union. Labo Laborr "ran ranted ted addi additi tion onal al compensatio compensation, n, 9t. /ohn issued Aside Aside from from the remedy remedy of  an order order re"ardin re"ardin" " the school submittin" submittin" the dispute dispute for closur closure e due to :irre :irrecon concil cilabl able e !olu !olunt ntar ary y comp compul ulso sory ry di'erences; beteen the Union arbitr arbitrati ation, on, the employ employer er and the school. may ha!e ha!e opte opted d to le a compla complaint int for unfair unfair labor labor practice practice a"ainst a"ainst the Union for bar"ainin" in bad faith. If found found "uilty "uilty,, that that "i!es "i!es rise to the ci!il and criminal action a nd nd a llllo s s the employ employer er to implem implement ent a loc& loc& out (tempo (temporar rary y or& or& stoppa"e) stoppa"e) but not closure closure of establishme establishment nt resultin" resultin" to the the permane permanent nt loss loss of 

is >ENIE>. The April April 00, 00, 0GG6 0GG6 Deci Decisi sion on and April %, 0GG 0GG *esol *esolut utio ion n of  the Court Appeals in CA-?.*. 9 No. +6% are A$$IR9E> .

mploye yees es are are 9e h' h'rn v. Employer in this Emplo represented by 8e 9e h'rn case is 8e 9hurn represented 9hur 9hurn n 2or& or&ers ers Wor8er Wor8ers s +5.R. Corporation. Union, an a@liate ;64/=/1 of >ebruary  8o!e 8o!eme ment nt.. The The Union had a pendin" appl applic icat atio ion n for for re"is re"istra tratio tion n ith ith the 3ureau of   Labor *elations.

employment employment for the entire or&force. &e#" &e#"hu hurn rn is guil guilty ty of  unfai unfair r labor labor practi practice ce' ' sinc since e the the tota totali lity ty of  e%idence e%idence show that the real reason behind the shutdown of the corp corpor orat atio ion n was was the the formation of the union.

%G days after the Union led for its re"istrat re"istration, ion, the petitioner petitioner 8e-9hurn Corp. started placin" on forced lea!e all the ran&-andle employ ee ees ho  er ere members of the unionBs bar"ai bar"ainin nin" " unit. unit. *espo *esponde ndent nt Union then led a certicatio certication n ith the 8ed-Arbitration Unit of  the D=LE. It is orthy to note that to cons consti titu tute te unfa unfair ir labo laborr Instead of lin" an anser, the practice, the dismissal need Corp Corpor orat atio ion n led led a comme comment nt not entirely and e#clusi!ely hich stated that it ill instead be moti! moti!at ated ed by union unionBs Bs temporarily lay o' its acti!ities. It is enou"h that employees a nd cease discrimination  as a operations. contributin" factor. Thus, if  the basic inspiration for the  Thus, the Union led a notice of  act act of the the emp employe loyerr is stri&e stri&e a"ains a"ainstt the corpor corporatio ation n deri!ed from the a@liation on the "round "round of unfair unfair labor or acti!it acti!ities ies of the union, union, practi practice5 ce5spe speci cicall cally, y, ille"a ille"all the corpor corporatio ationBs nBs reaso reason, n, loc&out and union bustin". The no matter matter ho seemin seemin"ly "ly corporation contended that due !alid is una!ailin". to econom economic ic re!er re!ersals sals,, it as compelled to close and cease its operat operation ions s to pre!e pre!ent nt seriou serious s losses.

the W>I*8 A>>I*8ED. ED. Cost Costs s a"ai a"ain nst the petitioners.

 The issue therefore in this case is hether or not the dismissal of the the empl employ oyee ees s is for for an authoried authoried cause. If otherise, otherise, hether or not they are "uilty of  ille"al loc&out and union bustin" hic hich h are are all an e#er e#erci cise se of  unfair labor practiceO Employer in this Emplo mploye yees es are are *esp esponde ondent nt Unio Union n are are all all The T?< totality of the is TPK repr epresen esente ted d by employees of petitioner. In their employer ’s hop@tte hop@tters rs v. case acts 9hoptters.  TPK 9hoptters desire desire to impro!e impro!e the or&in" or&in" summ T?< summar aril ily y rest restri rict cted  ed  Union. condit condition ions, s, they they formed formed TPK emplo hop@tters ployee yees’ right ight to Union. A day after their organi$e. nion +5.R. meetin meetin", ", %+ employe employees es ere ere ;=;-;01 barred from enterin"  The Court ruled that the petitionerB petitionerBs s factory factory premises premises in 7uestioned acts of   Qamb ambales ales and and ord ordered ered to peti petiti tion oner ers, s, name namely ly$$ %. tran transf sfer er TPK TPK are areho hous use e at 9pon 9ponsor sorin in" " a eld eld trip trip to 9ubic 3a y >reepo rt rt Qone Qambales for its employees purportedly for its e#pansion. to the e#clusi e#clusion on of Union Union 8embers before the After the union as sche schedu dule led d cert certi ica cati tion on formed, the employer ele electio ction n, 0. The The act acti!e i!e sponsored eld trip to Qambales campa ampai" i"n n by the the sale sales s to the e#clus io io n of union o@cer of petitioners members before the scheduled a"ainst the union pre!ailin" cert certi ica cattion ion elec electi tion on and and as bar"ainin" a"ent durin" afterards, %+ employees ere the eld eld trip, trip, 4. Escort Escortin" in" order ordered ed to "o on forced forced lea!e its employees after the eld due due to the the una!a una!ail ilab abil ilit ity y of  trip trip to the pollin" pollin" center center or&. The Union contends that and 6. Continuous hirin" of 

Anen Anentt the the issu issue e on the aard of   attorn attorneyB eyBs s fess, fess, the applicable la concernin" the "rant thereof in labor cases is Article %%% of the the Labor Code. ursuant thereto, the aard of  %G attorneyBs attorneyBs fees is limited to cases of  unlaful unlaful ithholdin" ithholdin" of  a" a"es. In this case case,, hoe hoe!e !er, r, the the Court cannot nd any clai claim m or proo prooff that that petitioners unlafully ithhe ithheld ld the a"es a"es of respondents. Cons Conse7 e7ue uent ntly ly,, the the "rant of %G atto attorn rney eyBs Bs fees fees in fa!or of responden respondents ts

they hey er ere not "i!e "i!en n or& or& assi"nments hile the subcontractors ere continuousl continuously y hired hired to perform perform their functions. >olloin" the UnionBs certication election, petitioners retr retrenc enched hed the Union Union on the alle alle"e "ed d nan nanci cial al losse losses s and and assi"ne assi"ned d or& or& on a rotatio rotational nal basi basis. s. >urth urther er it as on the the impression impression that the employees employees ho ho oppo oppose sed d its its econ econom omic ic measur measures es ere ere moti!at moti!ated ed by spite in lin" the complaint for UL a"ainst it.

Employer in this Emplo mploye yees es are are Arellano case case is Arell Arellano ano Arellano niversity Uni!ersity. Uni!ersity Employees Emplo mploye yees es and and and and Wor8e or8ers rs 2or& or&ers ers Unio Union, n, nion v. Co'rt the sole and o" Appeals) e#clusi!e +5.R. ;,==071 bar"ai bar"ainin nin" " a"ent a"ent of Arellano

subcontract subcontractors ors performin" performin" respondentsB functions and . Assi"nin" union members to the Caban"an site to or& as "rass cutters a nd . The enfor enforcem cement ent of or& or& on a rotat rotation ional al basis basis for union union members, members, ta&en ta&en to"ether, to"ether, reasonably support inference that indeed, such ere ere all all orch orches estr trat ated ed to rest restri rict ct the the Unio UnionB nBs s free free e#er e#ercis cise e of their their ri"ht ri"ht to self-or"aniation.

 The issue therefore in this case is het hethe herr or not not ther there e as as unfair labor practice committed on the part of the companyO  The Arellano Uni!ersity %idently, %idently, the Uni%ersity  Employees Employees and 2or&ers 2or&ers Union cann cannot ot be faul faulte ted d for  for  (Union), the e#clusi!e unfair unfair labor practice practice as bar"ai bar"ainin nin" " repr represe esenta ntati! ti!e e of  merely heeded the about 41G ran& and le re(uest of Union employees of Arellano members in good faith. Uni! Uni!e ersit rsity5 y5l led ed it ith the the Nati Nation onal al Con Concili ciliat atio ion n and and  The Court ruled that to 8edi 8ediat atio ion n 3oar 3oard d a Notic Notice e of  constitute UL, !iolations of 

is not , e#cep e#ceptt ith ith respe respect ct to the aard of   attorneyBs fees hich is hereby >ELETE>.

 The NL*C Decision of =ctober %0, %1 and *esoluti *esolution on of /anuary 0G, % are A$$IR9E>) #ith the 9O>I$ICATION  that the dismissal of   petitioner-union

Uni!ersity Uni!ersity..

9tri&e 9tri&e char"in" char"in" the Uni!ersity Uni!ersity the the C3A C3A must must be "ros "ross. s. ith UL as follos$ ?ross ?ross !iolat !iolation ion under under Art. Art. 0% 0% of the the Labo Laborr Code Code,, %. Inte Interf rfer erin in" " ith ith unio union n mean means s Ma"r Ma"ran antt and andHor Hor acti!ities malicious refusal to comply 0. Unio Union n bust bustin in" " by C3A C3A ith the economic !iolation and disre"ard pro!isions thereof. thereof. of unionBs unionBs re7uest re7uest to deduct deduct penalties penalties from In this case, the ri"ht of the its members ho ere inc incumbe umben nt bar bar"ain "ainin in" " abse absent nt and and ith ithou outt representati!e to chec& o'   
memb member ers s 8=NI 8=NIC= C= CAL8A, C=N9TANCI= 3ASK=NAN, 3E*N 3E*NA* A*D= D= 9A3L 9A3LE, E, NE9T NE9T=* =* 3*IN 3*IN=9 =9A, A, NAN/I 8ACA*A8AT, 8ACA*A8AT, EDUA*D= >L=*A?UE >L=*A?UE a nd DI=NS 9. LU8ANTA is 9ET A9IDE, A9IDE, and they they are thus ordered *EIN9TATED 2ITK=UT 3AC2A?E9. If their reinstatement is no lon"er possible, hoe!er, they should be "i!en 9EA*ATI=N AS at the the rate rate of  =ne =ne (%) (%) 8ont 8onth h pay pay for e!ery yea r of   ser!ice.

that there a s no factu factual al basi basis s to hold hold the Uni!ersity Uni!ersity "uilty "uilty of  unio union n bust bustin in" " as the the petitioners ha!e initiated the stri&e out of their on !olition. 0. 2ith ith respe espect ct to the the unio union n bust bustin in" ", the NL* NL*C rule ruled d that that ith ith respe respect ct to the refus refusal al of the the Uni! Uni!er ersi sity ty to deduct deduct penalties penalties from the salaries of   members of the Union ho ho faile failed d to atten attend d meet meetin in"s "s,, the the NL* NL*C ruled that the la  man mandate dates s that that the the Unio Union n shou should ld not not be arbitrary, arbitrary, e#cessi!e e#cessi!e or oppressi!e in imposin" a ne. 4. =n the the claim claim that that the the Uni! Uni!er ersi sity ty had had been been contra contracti ctin" n" out or&, or&, the NL*C held that the same as ne!er raised durin" durin" the conciliation conciliation

meetin"s at the NC83 le!el. In the the issu issue e befo before re the the 9upre 9upreme me Court, Court, the Arell Arellano ano insi insist sts s that that the the Uni! Uni!er ersi sity ty !iolated the C3A by ithholdin" union dues and death benets.  The Uni!ersity counters that on the re7uest re7uest of Union members in li"ht li"ht of their their "ripes "ripes a"ainst a"ainst the Union and its o@cers, it did ithhold said dues and benets hich they deposited before the D=LE D=LE here here the partie parties s could could settle the issues amon" themsel!es.