Tanduay Distillery Labor Union vs NLRCFull description
Sugue vs Triumph - Labor case digested
Digest labor case
Case Digest: J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. vs Sps Ang Agency, Trusts and Partnerships
Toyota Motors Phil. Corp. vs. TMPC Labor Union Facts:
On May May 20 2000 00,, MedMed-Ar Arbi bite terr Ma. Ma. Zosi Zosima ma Lame Lameyr yra a issu issued ed an orde orderr certifying Toyota Motor Philiines !ororation "or#ers Association as the e$clusi%e bargaining agent of all Toyota ran#-and-&le emloyees. Toyota &led a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order. Lameyra denied the motion and Toyota e%entually aealed the order before the 'OL( )ecretary. Mean*hile, the +nion submitted its collecti%e bargaining agreement !A roos roosals als to Toyota oyota but the latter latter refus refused ed to bargai bargain n endin ending g its aeal aeal before the 'OL( )ecretary. The +nion then &led a notice of stri#e *ith the /ational !onciliation and Mediation oard /!M. The /!M con%erted the noti notice ce of stri stri# #e to a re% re%en enti ti%e %e medi mediat atio ion n cons consid ider erin ing g that that the the 'OL( 'OL( )ecre )ecretar tary y *as yet to decide decide on Toyota oyotas s aeal aeal.. 1n relatio elation n to Toyota oyotas s aeal aeal,, the arties arties *ere *ere in%ite in%ited d to a heari hearing. ng. +nion +nion membe members rs *ere *ere not allo*ed to attend the hearing as they *ere atly reresented by the +nion. ut desite this, many +nion members and ocers failed to render o%ertime and *or# on the follo*ing day *hich caused Toyota to lose P34,567,778.00. The union members *ent to the hearing and assembled before the ureau ureau of Labor 9elations. 9elations. )ubse: )ubse:uen uently tly,, Toyota oyota termi terminat nated ed 22 22; ; emlo emloyee yees. s. The termin terminate ated d emloyees allegedly abandoned their *or#. This resulted to another rally *ithin Toyotas remises as the stri#ers barricaded the entrances of Toyota re% re%en enti ting ng non-s non-str tri# i#er ers s from from goin going g to *or# *or#.. On A Ari rill 20 2008 08,, the the 'OL( 'OL( )ecretary assumed une 2008, union members still conducted rallies and ic#ets.
Issue: "het "hethe herr or not not the the stri stri# #es cond conduc ucte ted d by the the +nio +nion n on di?e di?errent ent occasions are illegal.
Held: @es. @es. The stri#e conducted before the L9 as *ell as the stri#e conducted *hen the 22; emloyees *ere terminated is illegal because both did not go through the roer rocedure re:uired by the Labor !ode. 1t cannot be said that the stri#e conducted before the L9 is beyond the ambit
of the stri#es contemlated in the Labor !ode. The +nion argues that the stri#eB is actually a rotest directed against the go%ernment and is co%ered by their constitutional right to eaceably assemble and etition the go%ernment for redress of grie%ances. The )! disagreed *ith this argument because the +nion failed to ro%ide e%idence that the Mediator-Arbiter *as biased against them. Curther, if this *ere the #ind of rotest they *ere claiming, they should ha%e secured a rally ermit. Curther still, this case in%ol%es a labor disute. The emloyees may shroud their stri#eB as mere demonstrations co%ered by the constitution but in reality these are temorary *or# stoages. The stri#es conducted after the 'OL( )ecretary assumed
