CBA; Appropriate Bargaining Unit (1998) by the NLRC, as well as those concluded and agreed upon by

the parties prior to their arriving at a deadlock in their

What is an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of negotiations. Company X questioned the retroactivity of the
collective bargaining? [5%] CBA alleging that the same contravenes Art. 253-A of the
Labor Code, which provides for the automatic retroactivity of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the renewed CBA only if the same is entered into within six
An APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT is a group of (6) months from its expiry date, and, if not, the parties must
employees of a given employer comprised of all or less than agree on the duration of retroactivity.
all of the entire body of employees, which the collective
1) Is Company X’s position correct?
interest of all the employees, consistent with the interest of the
employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve reciprocal 2) Would your answer be different if the assumption of
rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor was at the request or
provisions of the law. (See, e.g., University of the Philippines instance of Company X?
v. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA 451 (1992).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CBA; Arbitral Award; Retroactive Effect (2001)
1) The Company’s position is not correct. In the absence of a
Company A and Union B had a 3-year CBA that expired on specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity of the
June 12, 1990. Negotiations proved futile so the unresolved effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor,
issues were referred to an Arbiter who rendered a decision on the same is deemed vested with plenary and discretionary
March 15, 1992 retroactive to December 14, 1990. Is the powers to determine the effectivity thereof, (St Luke’s
Arbiter’s decision providing for retroactivity tenable or not? Medical Center, Inc. vs. Hon. Ruben O. Torres, etal,-G.R. No.
Why? (5%) 99395, 29 June 1993, J. Melo. 222 SCRA 779)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) No. Regardless of which party sought the assumption by the
Labor Secretary, the effect would be the same. An assumption
The referral of the unresolved issues of the collective
case gives the Labor Secretary the plenary arbitration powers
bargaining negotiations to an Arbiter is not within the
to rule on the issues presented for resolution, including the
jurisdiction of the Arbiter. But assuming that the unresolved
retroactivity of the new CBA.
issues in the collective bargaining negotiations were properly
referred to the Arbiter pursuant to the provision of the Labor CBA; Automatic Renewal Clause (1999)
Code (Art. 262} that states that a Voluntary Arbitrator may
hear and decide any labor dispute, including bargaining What is the “automatic renewal clause” in a collective
deadlocks, the Arbiter’s decision providing for retroactivity is bargaining agreement? (2%)
tenable. Exercising his compulsory arbitration power, the
Arbiter could decide the issue of retroactivity in any way SUGGESTED ANSWER:
which is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
The “AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE” in a CBA refers
order or public policy. But in a case (Manila Electric Co vs.
to that provision of the Labor Code (Article 253) which states
Secretary of Labor Leonardo Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598,
that “It shall be the duty of both parties (to a CBA) to keep the
February 22, 2000), the Supreme Court said that an arbitral
status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms
award shall retroact to the first day after the six-month period
and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
following the expiration of the last day of the CBA that was
(freedom) period and/or until a new agreement is reached by
being re-negotiated.
the parties.”
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CBA; Automatic Renewal Clause (2001)
The retroactive Order of the Labor Arbiter is void for want of
Company “A” and Union “B” negotiated the last two years of
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Nowhere in the
their five-year CBA on April 1, 1990 to expire on March 31,
Labor Code, more specifically, Article 217, is the Labor
1992. Considering the amicable relations between the parties,
Arbiter given jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective
neither one moved for the extension or termination of the
bargaining, including determining the period or duration of a
agreement. Sometime in 1995. some disgruntled employees
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
filed a complaint demanding that they be paid the annual
CBA; Arbitral Awards; Effectivity (1994) salary increases and other related annual increases specified in
the CBA of April 1990, citing the provision in Art. 253 of the
Labor Code which requires the parties to “xxx keep the status
quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
Company X, a transportation company, and Union Y were in conditions of the existing agreement during the 60 day period
the process of negotiating a new Collective Bargaining and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties”. A,
Agreement (CBA) to replace the one which expired on March however, maintained that the annual salary increases and
15. 1990. The negotiations reached an impasse on economic related benefits specifically provided for in the CBA were,
issues on June 30, 1990. The Secretary of Labor assumed pursuant to contract and law, effective only for the term
Jurisdiction over the dispute and certified the same to the specified therein, namely, until March 31, 1992 only. Who is
NLRC for proper disposition. Proceedings before the NLRC correct? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
ended on November 30. 1990 and a decision was rendered on
December 15, 1990, The said decision made retroactive to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
March 15, 1990 the new CBA containing the issues resolved
The disgruntled employees are correct in their claim that the (d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a
expired CBA remains in full force and effect until a new CBA certification election to determine which union really
is signed in accordance with Article 253 of the Labor Code. represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining
The SC ruled in New Pacific Timber and Supply Co, Inc. us. unit. (Haw at Buklod ng Manggagaiva [IBM] v. Calleja, G.R.
NLRC, GR No. 124224. March 17, 2000: “Article 253 of the No. 84685, February 23,1990)
Labor Code explicitly provided that until a new Collective
Bargaining Agreement has been executed by and between the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
parties, they are duly bound to keep the status quo and to
(c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of
compelled legally to deal with them at this stage.
the existing agreement. The law does not provide for any
exception or qualification as to which of the economic
provisions of the existing agreement are to retain force and
effect, therefore, it must be understood as encompassing all CBA; Certification Election; “No-Union” Win (2006)
the terms and conditions in the said agreement.”
Can a “no-union” win in a certification election? (2.5%)
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
With Art. 253 of the Labor Code as basis, the disgruntled
employees should be paid the annual salary increases and YES. Sec. 20, Rule 9, Book V provides that where the votes
other related annual increases provided in the 1990-1992 CBA cast results in “no union” obtaining the majority, the med
even after the expiration of said CBA as long as said CBA did arbiter shall declare such fact in the order. Hence, the
not provide that said increases were to be paid only for certain employees may choose not to be represented by anyone
specific years. (Reyes-Trajano v. Trajano, G.R. No 84433, June 2, 1992).

CBA; Bargaining Representative (2000)

The Ang Sarap Kainan Workers Union appointed Juan Javier, CBA; Certification Election; Consent Election; Run-Off
a law student, as bargaining representative. Mr. Javier is Election (2000)
neither an employee of Ang Sarap Kainan Company nor a
Distinguish between “Certification Election”, “Consent
member of the union. Is the appointment of Mr. Javier as a
Election,” and “Run-off Election”, (6%)
bargaining representative in accord with law? Explain, (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CERTIFICATION ELECTION requires a petition for a
Yes, the law does not require that the bargaining
Certification Election filed by a union or employer. A Med-
representative be an employee of the company nor an officer
Arbiter grants the petition and an election officer is designated
or member of the union. {Art 212 (j), Labor Code}.
by the regional director to supervise the election. (Art. 256,
CBA; Certification Election (2005) 257, 258, Labor Code).

As Human Resources Department (HRD) manager of EZ CONSENT ELECTION is held by agreement of the unions
Components, an unorganized manufacturer of electric and with or without participation of the medarbiter. [Warren
electronic components for household appliances, you are Manufacturing Workers Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations,
suddenly confronted with demands for recognition and 159 SCRA 387 (1988)]
collective bargaining negotiations from two competing labor
RUN-OFF ELECTION takes place between the unions who
unions. They both claim to represent all the rank-and-file
received the two highest number of votes where not one of the
employees. Union A is led by a moderate faction, while Union
unions obtained the majority of the valid votes cast, provided
B is affiliated with a militant federation identified with leftist
that the total union votes is at least 50% of the votes cast.
ideology. Which of the following courses of action should you
(Art. 256, Labor Code).
take to best protect the interests of your company and
employees?

(a.) Recognize Union A as the rightful bargaining CBA; Certification Election; Freedom Period (1999)
representative because it will be more reasonable to deal with;
1. In what instance may a petition for certification election
(b.) Recognize Union B because you do not want to be filed outside the freedom period of a current collective
antagonize its leftist connections and foment inter-union bargaining agreement? (3%).
conflicts;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c.) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be
compelled legally to deal with them at this stage; or As a general rule, in an establishment where there is in force
and effect a CBA, a petition for certification election may be
(d.) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a filed only during the freedom period of such CBA. But to have
certification election to determine which union really the above-mentioned effect, the CBA should have been filed
represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining and registered with the Department of Labor and Employment
unit. (10%) (See Article 231, 253-A and 256) Thus, a CBA that has not
been filed and registered with the Department of Labor and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Employment cannot be a bar to a certification election and Transportation Company (LTC). Shortly, thereafter, a
such election can be held outside of the freedom period of Collective Bargaining Agreement was concluded by LTC and
such CBA. AWOL which provided for a closed shop. Consequently,
AWOL, demanded that Eddie Graciaa and all the PML
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: members be required to become members of AWOL as a
condition for their continued employment: otherwise, they
A petition for certification election may be filed outside the
shall be dismissed pursuant to the closed shop provision of the
freedom period of a current CBA if such CBA is a new CBA
CBA. The union security clause of the CBA also provided for
that has been prematurely entered into, meaning, it was
the dismissal of employees who have not maintained their
entered into before the expiry date of the old CBA. The filing
membership in the union. For one reason or another, Francis
of the petition for certification election shall be within the
Magallona, a member of AWOL, was expelled from the union
freedom period of the old CBA which is outside of the
membership for acts inimical to the interest of the union. Upon
freedom period of the new CBA that had been prematurely
receipt of the notice that Francis Magallona failed to maintain
entered into.
his membership in good standing with AWOL, LTC
CBA; Certification Election; Probationary Employees (1999) summarily dismissed him from employment.

2. Are probationary employees entitled to vote in a 1. Can Eddie Graciaa and all the PML members be
certification election? Why? (2%). required to become members of the AWOL pursuant to the
closed shop provision of the CBA? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a certification election, all rank-and-file employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote. This principle Eddie Gracla and all the PML members can not be required to
is clearly stated in Article 255 of the Labor Code which states become members of AWOL pursuant to the closed shop
that the “labor organization designated or selected by the provision of the CBA. According to the Labor Code (Article
majority of the employees in such unit shall be the exclusive 248(e), a closed shop provision cannot be applied to those
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of employees who are already members of another union at the
collective bargaining.” Collective bargaining covers all time of the signing of the CBA.
aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CBA
1. Is the termination from employment of Francis
negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the
Magallona by LTC lawful? Why? (2%)
bargaining unit. Hence, all rank-and-file employees,
probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no
distinction as to their employment status as basis for eligibility Pursuant to the closed shop provision of the CBA entered into
to vote in the petition for certification election. The law refers by AWOL with LTC, membership in AWOL has become a
to “all” the employees in the bargaining unit. All they need to condition of employment in LTC. As long as the expulsion of
be eligible to vote is to belong to the “bargaining unit,” Francis Magallona from AWOL was done in accordance with
(Airtime Specialists, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, ISO SCRA 749) applicable provisions of law and with the Constitution and By-
laws of the AWOL, then it was lawful for LTC to terminate
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Magallona. Panel: The termination is unlawful (Ferrer v.
NLRC).
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES may not be entitled to vote
in a certification election where only regular employees CBA; Closed Shop vs. Agency Shop (1997)
belong to a bargaining unit and probationary employees do not
belong to such bargaining unit. It is the belonging to a (a) Describe a “closed shop agreement, does it differ from an
bargaining unit that entitles an employee to vote in a “agency shop agreement.”
certification election.
(b) Are the above agreements legal?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) A “CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT” is that agreement
YES. Any employee, whether employed for a definite period embodied in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, be whereby the employer binds itself not to hire any person
considered an employee for purposes of membership in any unless he is first a union member of the collective bargaining
labor union (Art. 277(c)). representative. An “AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT” is
different from a closed shop agreement in that under the
former, the employer does not bind itself not to hire a person
unless he is first a union member of the collective bargaining
CBA; Closed Shop Provision; When not applicable (1999)
representative. Instead, the employer binds itself to check off
FACTS: In a certification election conducted by the from those who are not union members of the collective
Department of Labor, Associated Workers Organization in bargaining representative a reasonable fee equivalent to the
Laguna (AWOL) headed by Cesar Montanyo, won over dues and other fees paid by union members if the non-union
Pangkat ng mga Manggagawa sa Laguna (PML), headed by members accept the benefits of the CBA.
Eddie Graciaa. Hence, AWOL was certified as the exclusive
(b) The above agreements are legal or they are expressly
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the Laguna
allowed by the Labor Code.
CBA; Contract Bar Rule vs. Deadlock Bar Rule (1999) CBA; interpretation (2004)

Distinguish between “contract bar rule” and “deadlock bar B. The CBA between the Company and the rankand- file
rule”. (3%) Union contained the following provision: “Section 3. MEAL
ALLOWANCE. The Company agrees to grant a MEAL
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALLOWANCE of TEN PESOS (P10.00) to all employees
who render at least TWO (2) hours or more of actual overtime
Under the “CONTRACT BAR RULE,” a certification election
work on a workday, and FREE MEALS, as presently
cannot be held if there is in force and in effect a collective
practiced, not exceeding TWENTY FIVE PESOS (P25.00)
bargaining agreement that has been duly registered with the
after THREE (3) hours of actual overtime work.” Dispute in
Department of Labor and Employment except during the
the interpretation of the above provision arose as the Company
freedom period of such CBA which is the 60-day period prior
asserts that the phrase “after three (3) hours of actual overtime
to the expiry date of said CBA. (See Articles 231, 253-A and
work” does not mean after exactly three (3) hours of actual
256) Under the “DEADLOCK BAR RULE” a certification
overtime work; it means after more than three (3) hours of
election can not be held if a bargaining deadlock to which an
actual overtime work. The Union, on the other hand,
incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been
maintained that “after three (3) hours of actual overtime work”
submitted to conciliation or mediation or had become the
simply means after rendering exactly, or no less than, three (3)
subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. (See Section 3,
hours of actual overtime work. Which interpretation do you
Rule XI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
think should prevail? Why? (5%)
of the Labor Code)
CBA; Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions (1996)

2) What jurisdictional pre-conditions must be present to set in

CBA; Coverage; Non-Union Members; Religious Sect (2005)
motion the mechanics of a collective bargaining?
A group of employees in XYZ Factory belonging to a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
religious sect, in conformity with the teachings and dictates of
their religion, refused to join the labor union in the factory. To set in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining, these
The labor union was able to negotiate a substantial wage jurisdictional pre-conditions must be present, namely:
increase in its collective bargaining agreement with
management. A provision therein stated that the wage increase 1. The employees in a bargaining unit should form a labor
would be paid to the members of the union only in view of a organization;
“closed shop” union security clause in the new agreement. The
members of the sect protested and demanded that the wage 2. The labor organization should be a legitimate labor
increase be extended to them. The officers of the union organization;
countered by demanding their termination from the company
3. As such legitimate labor organization, it should be
pursuant to the “closed shop” provision in the just-concluded
recognized or certified as the collective bargaining
CBA. (6%)
representative of the employees of the bargaining unit; and
(a) Is the CBA provision valid?
4. The labor organization as the collective bargaining
SUGGESTED ANSWER: representative should request the employer to bargain
collectively. (See Arts. 243, 234, 255 and 250 of the Labor
No, the CBA provision is not valid. The benefits of a CBA are Code)
extendible to all employees regardless of their membership in
the union because to withhold the same from non-union ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
members would be to discriminate against them. (National
The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only
Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines v.
when the following Jurisdictional preconditions are met:
San Miguel Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. L-18170, August
31,1963) (1) possession of the status of majority representation of the
employees’ representative in accordance with any of the
(b) Should the company comply with theunion’s demand of
means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor
terminating the members of the religious sect?
Code;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) proof of majority of representation; and
No. The right to join includes the right not to join by reason of
(3) a demand to bargain under Art. 251(g), of the Labor Code.
religious beliefs. Members of said religious sect cannot be
(Kiok Loy v. NLRC. 141 SCRA 179 [1986])
compelled or coerced to join the labor union even when the
union has a closed shop agreement with the employer; that in
spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious
sect cannot be refused employment or dismissed from their CBA; Lock-out vs. Closed Shop (2004)
jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the
collective bargaining union. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Distinguish clearly but briefly between Lock-out and Closed
Workers’ Union, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12,1974) Shop.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
LOCKOUT refers to the temporary refusal of an employer to Corporation effective September 30, 1993. In this regard,
furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial dispute. notice was sent on August 30, 1993 to each employee advising
CLOSED SHOP, on the other hand, refers to a union security them of the sale of the Company’s assets to Lyra Music
clause in a collective bargaining agreement whereby the Corporation and the closure of the company’s operations
employer agrees not to employ any person who is not a effective September 30, 1993. CRP, likewise, requested that
member of the exclusive collective bargaining representative each employee receive his separation pay equivalent to one-
of the employees in a bargaining unit. and-one-half (1 & 1/2) month’s pay per year of service,
exclusive of all unused leaves which were also converted to
CBA; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining (1996) cash, and his 13th-month pay for 1993. The employees
received their respective separation pay under protest and
1) What matters are considered mandatory subjects of
thereafter filed an action against CRP and Lyra Music
collective bargaining?
Corporation for unfair labor practice (ULP). The Arbiter ruled
SUGGESTED ANSWER: in favor of the workers and ordered Lyra Music Corporation to
absorb the former workers of CRP. Was the Labor Arbiter
Wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of correct in his de cision?
employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances
or questions arising from the collective bargaining agreement SUGGESTED ANSWER:
are considered mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.
No. The Labor Arbiter is not correct. As held in the case of
(See Art. 252 of the Labor Code)
San Felipe Neri School of Mandaluyong vs. NLRC, when
there is a legitimate sale of a company’s assets, the buyer in
good faith cannot be legally compelled to absorb the
CBA; Registration Requirement; Contract Bar-Rule (2000) employees of the seller in good faith. In the case at bar, the
employees of the CRP were validly terminated based on
A Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed between the Article 284, e.g. closure of operations and separation pay was
Ang Sarap Kainan Company and the Ang Sarap Kainan paid at a rate much higher than the law. Furthermore, the case
Workers Union. Should the Collective Bargaining Agreement filed by the employees was UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. It
be registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations? If so, why? is highly irregular to order absorption of employees in a ULP
(3%) case.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: CBA; Social Security vs. Union Security (2004)

So that the contract-bar rule may apply the CBA should be Distinguish clearly but briefly between Social security and
registered, assuming it has been validly ratified and contains union security
the mandatory provisions. (Art. 232, Labor Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
CBA; Run-Off Election (2006)
SOCIAL SECURITY is the protection given by social
insurance programs such as the programs of the SSS, GSIS
and PHIC undertaken pursuant to their respective charters,
including the employees compensation program provided for
in the Labor Code. The aforesaid programs provide income
benefits and/or medical care when contingencies like sickness,
When does a “run-off’ election occur? (2.5%) (also maternity in the case of SSS) disability, death, or
retirement, including in the case of the GSIS, separation and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: unemployment benefits. On the other hand, UNION
SECURITY refers to a clause in a collective bargaining
A run-off election occurs when the following elements occur: agreement whereby the employer agrees to employ or
continue in employment only workers who are members of the
1. Between three (3) or more choices, and no choice exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
receiving a majority of the valid votes cast; employees of said employer in a bargaining unit.
2. The total number of votes for all contending
unions is at least 50% of the number of vote cast; CBA; Substitutionary Doctrine (2000)
and
3. Between the labor unions receiving the two a) The Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Pids and Co. Inc.
lost its majority status in the bargaining unit one year after the
highest number of votes (Article 256, Labor Code).
signing of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Bickerings
among all the three other unions in the bargaining unit were a
CBA; Sale of Establishment; Effect (1994) daily occurrence, with each union asserting majority status. To
resolve this pestering problem, the Company and the three
Coronet Records Phil. (CRP) manufactures audio/video record other unions agreed to hold a consent election under the
players, compact discs, video discs, cassettes and the like. supervision of the Bureau of Labor Relations. In the consent
CRPs shareholdings is 40% foreign and 60% domestic. CRP election, Pids and Co, Worker’s Union won, and was
signed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its accordingly recognized by the Company as the exclusive
rank-and-file workers for three years starting from January 1, bargaining representative in the bargaining unit. Is the Pids
1990 and ending on December 31, 1993. Before the expiration and Co. Workers Union bound by the Collective Bargaining
of the CBA, CRP decided to sell all its assets to Lyra Music
Agreement signed between the Company and the Samahan ng Agreement with the company. In the meantime, a power
Mga Manggagawa Sa Pids and Co. Inc.? Explain. (3%) struggle occurred within the national union PAFLU between
its National President, Manny Pakyao, and its National
b) Shortly after the consent election, Pids and Co. Inc. sold the Secretary General, Gabriel Miro. The representation issue
Groceries Division to Metro Manila Grocery Inc. The within PAFLU is pending resolution before the Office of the
employees of the sold division formed part of the bargaining Secretary of Labor. By reason of this intra-union dispute
unit described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and all within PAFLU, J & J obstinately and consistently refused to
were absorbed by Metro Manila Grocery Inc. Is Metro Manila offer any counterproposal and to bargain collectively with
Grocery Inc., as the new employer, bound by the Collective JEU-PAFLU until the representation issue within PAFLU
Bargaining Agreement existing at the time of the sale? shall have been resolved with finality. JEU-PAFLU filed a
Explain. (3%) Notice of Strike. The Secretary of Labor subsequently
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Will the representation issue that has arisen involving the
a) Yes, because the Collective Bargaining Agreement is not
national union PAFLU, to which the duty registered local
invalidated by the change of the bargaining agent while the
union JEU is affiliated, bar collective bargaining negotiation
CBA is still effective. The “substitutionary doctrine'’ applies.
with J & J? Explain briefly. (3%)
(Benguet Consolidated Inc. v. BCI Employees, 23 SCRA 465
(1968)) 2. Can the Secretary of Labor decide the labor dispute by
awarding the JEU CBA Proposals as the Collective
b) No. There are no indications that the sale is simulated or
Bargaining Agreement of the parties? Explain briefly. (2%)
intended to defeat the employees’ right to organize. A bona
fide sale terminates the employment relationship between the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
selling company and its employees. The CBA does not bind
the purchaser in good faith because the CBA is a personam 1. The representation issue that has arisen involving the
contract, unless the buyer agrees to be bound. [Sundowner national union PAFLU should not bar collective bargaining
Dev. Corp. v. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 (1989); Associated Labor negotiation with J and J. It is the local union JEU that has the
Union v. NLRC, 204 SCRA 913 (1993)]. right to bargain with the employer J and J, and not the national
union PAFLU. It is immaterial whether the representation
CBA; Union Security Clause; Closed Shop Provision (1995) issue within PAFLU has been resolved with finality or not.
Said squabble could not possibly serve as a bar to any
Reconcile the compulsory nature of the closed shop provision
collective bargaining since PAFLU is not the real party-in-
in a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the constitutional
interest to the talks; rather, the negotiations are confined to the
guarantee of freedom of association. Discuss fully.
corporation and the local union JEU. Only the collective
SUGGESTED ANSWER: bargaining agent, the local union JEU, possesses the legal
standing to negotiate with the corporation. A duly registered
Among the policies of the State in the field of labor relations local union affiliated with a national union or federation does
is to promote trade unionism and to foster the organization of not lose its legal personality or Independence (Adamson and
a strong and united labor movement. UNION SECURITY Adamson, Inc. v. The Court of Industrial Relations and
CLAUSES, like a closed shop agreement, is one way of Adamson and Adamson Supervising Union (FFW), 127
implementing the aforementioned labor relations policy. SCRA 268 [1984]).
Implementing to some extent the concept of freedom of
association, an employee who is already a member of a union 2. Yes. It is within assumption power.
could not be compelled to become a member of a bargaining
union, even if there is a closed shop agreement.
CBA; Wage Increase Coverage; Non-Union Employees
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(2005)
It could be argued that a closed shop provision in a Collective
(b) May a rank-and-file employee, who is not a member of
Bargaining Agreement, because it requires that a person
the union representing his bargaining unit, avail of the wage
should first be a member of the bargaining union before he is
increases which the union negotiated for its members? (4%)
employed, is violative of the right to freedom of association,
because said right subsumes not only a right to join, but also a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
right not to join a union. On the other hand, it could be argued
that the exercise of the freedom of association means that Yes, because the bargaining representative (union) does not
workers should join unions. A closed shop agreement, as a act for its members alone. It represents all the employees
union security clause, encourages the joining of unions. covered by the bargaining unit. (Mactan Workers Union v.
Aboitiz, G.R. No. L-30241, June 30, 1972) However,
CBA; Union; Representation Issue (1999) nonmembers who avail of CBA benefits are required under the
law to pay agency fees.
FACTS: Jenson & Jenson (J & J) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. Its rank- CBU; Company Union vs. Union Shop (2004)
and-file workers organized the Jenson Employees Union
(JEU), a duty registered local union affiliated with PAFLU, a Distinguish clearly but briefly between Company union and
national union. After having been certified as the exclusive union shop.
bargaining agent of the appropriate bargaining unit, JEU-
PAFLU submitted its proposals for a Collective Bargaining SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
A COMPANY UNION is a union of employees dominated or Distinguish clearly but briefly between Consent election and
under the control of the employer of said employees. A certification election.
UNION SHOP, on the other hand, refers to a union security
clause in a collective bargaining agreement whereby the SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
employer agrees to terminate the employment of an employee
A certification election and a consent election are both
who has not become a member of the union which is the
elections held to determine through secret ballot the sole and
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate
employees in a bargaining unit within a certain period after the
bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining or
employment of said employee or has ceased to become a
negotiations. There is this difference, however, a
union member.
CERTIFICATION ELECTION is ordered by the Department
CBU; Confidential Employees (1994) of Labor and Employment while a CONSENT ELECTION is
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or without the
1. Can an employer legally oppose the inclusion of intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment.
confidential employees in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees? CBU; Managerial Employees; Supervisory Employees (1995)

2. Would your answer be different if the confidential A supervisor’s union filed a petition for certification election
employees are sought to be included in the supervisory union? to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the
supervisory employees of Farmers Bank. Included in the list
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of supervisory employees attached to the petition are the
Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and
1) Yes, an employer can legally oppose the inclusion of Comptrollers. Farmers Bank questioned this list arguing that
confidential employees in the bargaining unit of the rank-and- Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and
file. This issue has been settled in the case of Golden Farms Comptrollers inherently possess the powers enumerated in
vs. Calleja, and reiterated in the case of Philips Industrial Dev. Art. 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code, i.e., the power and
Inc. vs. NLRC. prerogative to lay down and execute management policies
and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
assign or discipline employees.
a) Yes, an employer can legally oppose the inclusion of the
1. Is the contention of Farmers Bank correct? Discuss fully.
confidential employees in the bargaining unit of rank-and-file
employees because confidential employees are ineligible to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
form, assist or join a labor union. By the nature of their
functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or The contention of the Farmers Bank is not correct, if, on
have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise examination of the actual powers exercised by the Department
managerial functions in the field of labor relations, and the Managers, Bank Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers, they
union might not be assured of their loyalty in view of evident are not vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
conflict of interest. execute management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. If their
b) An employer can legally oppose the inclusion of powers are to carry out their duties and responsibilities in
confidential employees in the bargaining unit of rank -and-file accordance with the policies promulgated by the Board of
employees because confidential employees are considered part Directors of the Bank, or by external authorities, like the
of management. (Philtranco vs. BLR, 174 SCRA 388). Central Bank, then, they are not managerial but may be
supervisory personnel. But this may be noted: The Bank
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
officials mentioned in the case, have control, custody and/or
2) The answer would be the same if confidential employees access to confidential matters. Thus, they are confidential
are sought to be included in the supervisory union because employees and in accordance with earlier Supreme Court
confidential employees, being a part of management would decisions, as confidential employees, the Branch Manager,
not qualify to join, much less form a labor union. (Philtranco Cashier, Controller are disqualified from joining or assisting
vs. BLR, 174 SCRA 388), the supervisor’s union of the Bank.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

My answer would remain the same, even if the confidential The contention of the Fanners Bank is partially correct. The
employees were sought to be included in the supervisory Department managers and Branch managers, if they in fact
union. Confidential employees would have the same adverse have the powers implied by their titles, are managerial
impact on the bargaining unit of supervisors: Confidential personnel. In accordance with the Labor Code, managerial
employees’ access to highly sensitive information may personnel are not eligible to join and form labor unions. On
become the source of undue advantage by the union over the the other hand, cashiers who are in charge of money received
employer. (Philips Industrial Development Inc., vs. National or expended, and comptrollers who examine and supervise
Labor Relations Commission, et. al, G.R No. 88957, 25 June expenditures, are not managerial personnel, and if they
1992) supervise personnel, they could be supervisors, and are
therefore to be included in the bargaining unit of supervisors.

2. Is there any statutory basis for the petition of the union?

CBU; Consent Election vs. Certification Election (2004) Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the two (2) Managers cannot be part of the bargaining unit
composed of supervisory employees. A bargaining unit must
There is statutory basis for the petition of the supervisors’ effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual
union. Under the Labor Code, supervisors have the right to interests in wages, hours, working conditions and other
form and join unions, but only unions of supervisory subjects of collective bargaining. (San Miguel Corp.
employees. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, 227
SCRA 37O) The Labor Code (in Article 245) provides that
managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form
CBU; Managerial Employees; Supervisory Employees (1999) any labor organization.

FACTS: Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Companya ng The above provision shows that managerial employees do not
Tabaco (SMCT) filed a Petition for Certification Election have the same interests as the supervisory employees which
among the supervisory employees of the Tabaco compose the bargaining unit where SMCT wishes to be the
Manufacturing Company (Tabaco) before the NCR Regional exclusive collective bargaining representative.
Office of the Department of Labor and Employment. It
alleged, among other things, that it is a legitimate labor
organization, a duly chartered local of NAFLU; that Tabaco is CBU; Modes; Determination of Exclusive Bargaining
an organized establishment; and that no certification election Agreement (2006)
has been conducted within one year prior to the filing of its
petition for certification election. The Petition filed by SMCT The modes of determining an exclusive bargaining agreement
showed that out of its 50 members, 15 were rank-and-filers are:
and two (2) were managers. Tabaco filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the ground that SMCT union is composed of supervisory a. voluntary recognition
and rank-and-file employees and, therefore, cannot act as
b. certification election
bargaining agent for the proposed unit. SMCT filed an
opposition to the said Motion alleging that the infirmity, if c. consent election
any, in the membership of the union can be remedied in the
pre-election conference thru the exclusion-inclusion Explain briefly how they differ from one another. (5%)
proceedings wherein those employees who are occupying
rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the list of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
eligible voters.
(a.) VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION — is the voluntary
1. Should the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Tabaco be recognition by the employer of the status of the union as the
granted or denied? Explain. (3%) bargaining representative of the employees [Section l (bbb),
Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 (17
February 2003)].
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Tabaco should be granted.
According to the Labor Code (in Article 245), supervisory (b.) CERTIFICATION ELECTION is the process of
employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
organization of rank-and-file employees but may join or form employees in an appropriate bargaining unit [Section l(h),
separate labor organizations of their own. Because of the Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as
above-mentioned provision of the Labor Code, a labor amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 (17
organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory February 2003)].
employees is no labor organization at all. It cannot, for any
guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being (c.) CONSENT ELECTION is an agreed election, conducted
a legitimate labor organization, it cannot possess the requisite with or without the intervention of the DOLE to determine the
personality to file a petition for certification election. (See issue of majority representation of all the workers in the
Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. vs. Toyota Motor Philippines appropriate bargaining unit (Algire v. De Mesa, G.R. No.
Corp. Labor Union, 268 SCRA 573) 97622, October 19, 1994).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Due Process; Disciplinary Cases (1995)

The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In the first place, the 1. Gary, a salesman of Astro Chemical Company (ASTRO),
general rule is that in a certification election the employer is a was reported to have committed some serious anomalies in his
mere bystander. An employer has no legal standing to sale and distribution of company products. ASTRO designated
question a certification election as it is the sole concern of the its Chief Legal Officer to investigate Gary. Instead of
workers. The exceptions to the general rule of which are 1) submitting to the investigation, Gary filed a petition to enjoin
when the existence of an employer employee relationship is the investigation on the ground that ASTRO would appear to
denied; and 2) when the employer questions the legal be his accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. Will the
personality of the union because of irregularities in its petition to enjoin the investigation prosper? Discuss fully.
registration are not present in this case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Can the two (2) Managers be part of the bargaining unit?
The petition to enjoin the investigation will not prosper. It is
Why? (2%)
inevitable that in disciplinary cases, the employer would
SUGGESTED ANSWER: appear to be accuser, prosecutor, and judge at the same time
since it is the employer who charges an employee for the Distinguish managerial employees from supervisory
commission of an offense; he is also the person who directs employees, (3%)
the investigation to determine whether the charge against the
employee is true or not and he is the one who will judge if the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
employee is to be penalized or not. But if the employee is
A MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE is one who is vested with
given ample opportunity to defend himself, he could not
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management
validly claim that he was deprived of his right to due process
policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
of law.
discharge, assign or discipline employees. SUPERVISORY
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: EMPLOYEES, on the other hand, are those who in the interest
of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial
No. The employer is merely complying with the legal mandate actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely
to afford the employee due process by giving him the right to routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
be heard and the chance to answer the charges against him and independent judgment [Art. 212 (m), Labor Code] In a case,
accordingly to defend himself before dismissal is effected. the Supreme Court said: “In the petition before us, a thorough
dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory
Employees; groups of employees (1996) employees and section heads indisputably show that they are
not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since
1) Who are the managerial, supervisory and rankand-file
they do not lay down company policies. PICOP’s contention
employees?
that the subject section heads and unit managers exercise the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: authority to hire and fire is ambiguous and quite misleading
for the reason that any authority they exercise is not supreme
“MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE” is one who is vested with but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management determination of the company policies Inasmuch as any action
policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion,
assign or discipline employees. transfer, suspension and termination of employees is still
subject to confirmation and approval by their respective
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES are those who, in the interest superior. [See Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma,
of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial 205 SCRA 12, 17 (1992)] Thus, where such power, which is
actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary in effect recommendatory in character, is subject to
or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent evaluation, review and final action by the department heads
judgment. All employees who are neither managerial or and higher executives of the company, the same, although
supervisory employees are considered RANK-AND-FILE present, is not effective and not an exercise of independent
EMPLOYEES. (Art. 212(m) of the Labor Code) judgment as required by law. [Philippine Appliance Corp. v.
Laguesma, 229 SCRA 730, 737 (1993) citing Franklin Baker
Employees; Managerial Employee vs. Managerial Staff (1994)
Company of the Philippines v. Trajano, 157 SCRA 416, 422-
Distinguish the rights of managerial employees from members 433 (1988)].” (Paper Industries Corp. of the Philippines v.
of a managerial staff. Bienvenido E. Laguesma 330 SCRA 295, (2000)]

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Employees; Managerial vs. Supervisory vs. Rank-and-File

Employees (2003)
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES have no collective bargaining
rights because, they cannot join or form any other labor The Labor Code treats differently in various aspects the
organization while officers of a managerial staff are not employment of (i) managerial employees, (ii) supervisory
prohibited from joining, assisting or forming or arresting a employees, and (iii) rank-and-file employees. State the basic
supervisor’s union; hence, they can bargain collectively. (Art. distinguishing features of each type of employment.
245, Labor Code; National Sugar Refineries Corp. vs. NLRC,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
220 SCRA 452).
Under Book Three of the Labor Code, a MANAGERIAL
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
EMPLOYEE refers to one whose primary duty consists of the
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES, under Article 212(m) of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or
Labor Code are vested with the prerogatives to lay down and of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or
execute management policies and/or to hire, fire, transfer, members of the managerial staff. A supervisor and a rank and
promote, lay-off and discipline employees. They are not file employee can be considered as members of the managerial
eligible for the right to self-organization for purposes of staff, and therefore, a managerial employee if their primary
collective bargaining. Upon the other hand, members of duty consists of work directly related to management policies;
MANAGERIAL STAFF, under Article 82 of the Labor Code, if they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and
are not vested with the above-cited prerogatives. They are not independent judgment; regularly and directly assist a
entitled to overtime pay and other benefits under Book III, proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty
Title 1 of the Code. consists of the management of the establishment in which they
are employed or a subdivision thereof; or execute under
general supervision work along specialized or technical lines
requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or
Employees; managerial employees vs. supervisory employees execute under general supervision special assignments and
(2002) tasks; and who do not devote more than 20 percent of their
hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not union JEU is affiliated, bar collective bargaining negotiation
directly and closely related to the performance of the work with J & J? Explain briefly. (3%)
described above. All others are rank and file employees under
said Book (Art. 82, Labor Code, Sec. 2 (c), Rule I, Bk. III, 2) Can the Secretary of Labor decide the labor dispute by
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code). Under Book awarding the JEU CBA Proposals as the Collective
Five of the Labor Code, “MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE” is Bargaining Agreement of the parties? Explain briefly. (2%)
one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline 1. Representation issue in this case is not a bar…
employees. A SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE is one who, in
the interest of the employer, effectively recommends such 2. Yes. The Secretary of Labor can decide the labor dispute by
managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not awarding the JEU CBA proposals as the Collective Bargaining
merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of Agreement of the parties because when the Secretary of Labor
independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of (under Article 263[g]) assumes jurisdiction over a labor
the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
for purposes of this Book (Art. 212 (M), LaborCode). On the industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of
matter of right to self-organization, a managerial employee Labor exercises the power of compulsory arbitration over the
cannot exercise such right; while a supervisor and a rank and labor dispute, meaning, that as an exception to the general
file employee can (Arts. 245, 243, Labor Code). rule, the Secretary of Labor now has the power to set or fix
wages, rates of pay, hours of work or terms and conditions of
Right to Strike: Sympathy vs. General Strike (2004) employment by determining what should be the CBA of the
parties. (See Divine Word University vs. Secretary of Labor,
Distinguish clearly but briefly between: Sympathy strike and
213 SCRA 759)
general strike.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
What is involved in the case in the question is a corporation
In both a sympathy strike and in a general strike, there is a
engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. If the
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees. In
consumer products that are being manufactured are not such
both kinds of strike, the strike is not the result of a labor or
that a strike against the company cannot be considered a strike
industrial dispute. As the name implies, workers go on a
in an Industry indispensable for the national interest, then the
SYMPATHY STRIKE to show their sympathy for certain
assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor is not
workers who are on strike. On the other hand, in a GENERAL
proper. Therefore, he cannot legally exercise the powers of
STRIKE, workers in the country or in a region, province, or
compulsory arbitration in the labor dispute.
city or municipality go on a strike to publicly protest a certain
policy or action taken by the government. Thus, for instance, a
general strike may be declared by workers to publicly protest
the stand of President Arroyo that she is against an increase of Right to Strike; Compulsory Arbitration; Certification to
the minimum wage at this time. NLRC (1995)

What are the objectives of the Secretary of Labor and

Employment in certifying a labor dispute to the NLRC for
Right to Strike; Assumption Power compulsory arbitration? Explain.
FACTS: Jenson & Jenson (J & J) is a domestic corporation SUGGESTED ANSWER:
engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. Its rank-
and-flle workers organized the Jenson Employees Union The objectives of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in
(JEU), a duty registered local union affiliated with PAFLU, a certifying a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
national union. After having been certified as the exclusive arbitration is to prevent a work stoppage that may adversely
bargaining agent of the appropriate bargaining unit, JEU- affect the national interest and to see to it that a labor dispute
PAFLU submitted its proposals for a Collective Bargaining is expeditiously settled.
Agreement with the company. In the meantime, a power
struggle occurred within the national union PAFLU between Right to Strike; Effects; Hired Replacements (2006)
its National President, Manny Pakyao, and its National
If due to the prolonged strike, ROSE Corporation hired
Secretary General, Gabriel Miro. The representation issue
replacements, can it refuse to admit the replaced strikers?
within PAFLU is pending resolution before the Office of the
Secretary of Labor. By reason of this intra-union dispute SUGGESTED ANSWER:
within PAFLU, J & J obstinately and consistently refused to
offer any counterproposal and to bargain collectively with No. While present law recognizes the right of the employer to
JEU-PAFLU until the representation issue within PAFLU continue his business in the course of an economic strike, it
shall have been resolved with finality. JEU-PAFLU filed a assures the right of the strikers to return to their former
Notice of Strike. The Secretary of Labor subsequently positions at the expense of the replacements. Art. 264(a) of the
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Labor Code provides that mere participation of a worker in a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
1) Will the representation issue that has arisen involving the termination of his employment, even if a replacement had
national union PAFLU, to which the duty registered local been hired by the employer during such lawful strike (PT&T
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109281, December 7, 1995; Diwa ng
Pagkakaisa v. Filtex International Corporation, Nos. L-23960 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
& L-23961, February 26, 1968).
No, when the company admits all the strikers, it is deemed to
Right to Strike; Effects; illegal strike (1995) have waived the issue and condoned the strikers who
committed illegal acts (Citizen’s Labor Union v. Standard
Are the strikers in an illegal strike entitled to reinstatement Vacuum Oil Co., G.R. No. L-7478, May 6,1955; TASLI-ALU
under the Labor Code? Explain. v. CA, G.R. No. 145428, July 7, 2004).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Right to Strike; illegal dismissal (2003)

NO. Union officers and members who commit illegal acts lose Magdalo, a labor union in Oakwood, a furniture
their employment status. Any union officer who knowingly manufacturing firm, after failing in its negotiations with
participates in an illegal strike, and any worker or union Oakwood. filed with the Department of Labor and
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of Employment (DOLE) a notice of strike. The DOLE
illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his summoned Magdalo and Oakwood for conciliation hearings to
employment status. Participants (not a union officer and did resolve the deadlock. Unable to agree despite efforts of the
not commit any illegal act) may be entitled to reinstatement. DOLE, Magdalo called a strike participated in by its officers
and union members including Cesar Trinio, a rank-and-file
employee, who led the “walk out.” Oakwood filed a petition to
Right to Strike; Effects; illegal strike (1995) declare illegal the strike which Magdalo staged without
observing the seven-day ban under the Labor Code. Oakwood
If the strike is declared illegal, will the strikers be entitled to claimed that the strike being illegal, all those who participated
their wages for the duration for the strike? Explain, therein, including Cesar Trinio, could be dismissed as, in fact,
they were so dismissed by Oakwood. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER::
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. The applicable doctrine will be: No work, no pay, unless
there is an agreement to pay strike duration pay. When Oakwood dismissed all the officers and members of the
union who participated in the strike which was declared illegal
because it was staged without observing the seven-day ban
under the Labor Code. Oakwood illegally dismissed the union
Right to Strike; Effects; illegal strike (2000)
members, including Cesar Trinio. The Labor Code provides
A division manager of a company taunted a union officer two that a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
days after the union submitted to the Department of Labor and strike loses his employment status. Thus, the union officers
Employment (DOLE) the result of the strike vote. The were legally dismissed. But for a union member to lose his
division manager said: The union threat of an unfair labor employment status, he should have committed illegal acts
practice strike is phony or a bluff. Not even ten percent (10%) during the strike, like acts of violence, coercion or
of your members will join the strike.” To prove union member intimidation or obstruction of ingress to or egress from the
support for the strike, the union officer immediately instructed employer’s premises for lawful purposes or obstruction of
its members to cease working and walk out. Two hours after public thoroughfares. The union members, including Cesar
the walkout, the workers voluntarily returned to work. Trino, did not commit any of these acts. Thus, it would be
illegal todismiss them.
A. Was the walkout a strike? And if so, was it a valid activity?
(3%)

B. Can the union officer who led the short walkout, but who Right to Strike; illegal lockout (1995)
likewise voluntarily led the workers back to work, be
Fifty percent (50%) of the employees of Grandeur Company
disciplined by the employer? (3%)
went on strike after negotiations for a collective bargaining
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: agreement ended in a deadlock. Grandeur Company, being a
public utility, immediately petitioned the Secretary of Labor
a) Yes, it was a strike because there was a work stoppage by and Employment to assume jurisdiction and certify the case to
concerted action and there is an existing labor dispute. It was the NLRC. On the fourth day of the strike and before the
not a valid activity because the requisites for a valid strike DOLE Secretary could assume jurisdiction or certify the case
were not observed, (Art. 212, (o), (l) Labor Code). to the NLRC, the strikers communicated in writing their offer
to return to work. Grandeur Company refused to accept the
b) Yes, the employer may discipline the union officer. An offer of the strikers because it realized that they were not at all
illegal strike is a cause for the union officer to be declared to capable of paralyzing the operations of the company. The
have lost his employment status. [Art 263 (c), (d),(e), (f); Art strikers accused Grandeur Company of illegal lockout. Has
264 (a), Labor Code]. Grandeur Company committed the act charged by refusing to
accept the offer of the strikers to return to work? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Right to Strike; Effects; Strikers’ illegal Acts (2006)
There is no law that prohibits strikers to decide not to continue
Assuming the company admits all the strikers, can it later on
with a strike that they have started. Thus, the company
dismiss those employees who committed illegal acts?
committed an illegal lockout in refusing to accept the offer of
the strikers to return to work. Under the set of facts in the participated in the commission of illegal acts. If any, may be
question, the Company did not give the required notice to declared to have lost their employment status. (Art. 264).
lockout, much less did it observe the necessary waiting period,
nor did it take a needed vote on the lockout. Thus, the lockout b) The employer has two options:
is illegal.
1. It may declare the strikers as having lost their employment
Right to Strike; illegal strike; Loss of Employment (1994) status pursuant to Art. 264 of the Labor Code, or

Union A filed a Notice of Strike with the National 2. It may file a case before the Labor Arbiter, under Art, 217,
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department to have the strike declared illegal and after that proceed to
of Labor and Employment. Upon a motion to dismiss by the terminate the strikers.
Company on the ground that the acts complained of in the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
notice of strike are non-strikeable. The NCMB dismissed the
Notice of Strike but continued to mediate the issues contained 3) They could file a case of illegal dismissal. The strikers who
therein to prevent the escalation of the dispute between the are union officers may contend that the strike is not illegal.
parties. While the NCMB was conducting mediation The strikers who are mere union members may contend that
proceedings, the Union proceeded to conduct a strike vote as they did not commit any Illegal acts during the strike. (Art,
provided for under the Labor Code. After observance of the 264, Labor Code)
procedural processes required under the Code, the Union
declared a strike. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

1. Is the strike legal? a) The employees who were declared to have lost their
employment status can file a complaint for illegal dismissal
2. Can the employer unilaterally declare those who with the NLRC, or seek the assistance of the NCMB for
participated in the strike as having lost their employment conciliation/ mediation.
status?
b) The recourse of the workers whose employment status are
3. What recourse do these employees (declared by the declared to have been lost is to file a case of illegal dismissal
employer to have lost their employment status) have, if any? under Art. 217 of the Code, and to pray for the suspension of
the effects of termination under Article 277(b) of the said
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Code because this involves a mass lay-off.
1) NO. The strike is not legal. The Labor Code provides that
Right to Strike; Industries Vital to National Interest (2004)
no labor organization shall declare a strike without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with its Title VII of Book Which of the following may be considered among industries
V, which in turn provides that during conciliation proceedings most vital to national interest as to be the subject of immediate
at the NCMB, the parties are prohibited from doing any act assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and
that may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the dispute. Employment or certification for compulsory arbitration in case
(Arts. 264(a), also 250(d); Labor Code) of strike or work stoppage arising from a labor dispute?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (1) Bulletin daily newspaper publishing company.
a) The strike is not legal, considering that it was declared after (2) Local franchise of Jollibee and Starbucks.
the NCMB dismissed the Notice of Strike. Hence, it is as if, no
notice of strike was filed. A strike declared without a notice of (3) Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila.
strike is illegal, (GOP-CCP vs. CIR, 93 SCRA 118).
(4) Enchanted Kingdom, Elephant Island and Boracay Resort.
b) No. The strike is illegal. It is already settled in the case of
PAL vs. Secretary of Labor (Drilon) that the pendency of a (5) LBC, DHL and FedEx centers.
mediation proceedings is a bar to the staging of a strike even if
Justify your answer or choice. (5%)
all the procedural requirements were complied with.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Certification of labor dispute for immediate assumption of
2) The employer may unilaterally declare those who
jurisdiction by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and
participated in the strike as having lost their employment
Employment, as indispensable to national interest. (Art. 263
status but such unilateral declaration does not necessarily
[g], Labor Code).
mean that thereby the strikers are legally dismissed. The
strikers could still file a case of illegal dismissal and prove, if 1. Bulletin Daily Newspaper. Access to information, e.g.,
they can, that there was no just cause for their dismissal. local, foreign, or otherwise are requirements for an informed
citizenry.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila. The country
a) The employer cannot unilaterally declare those who
needs domestic sea transport due to our topography and for the
participated in the Illegal strike as having lost their
smooth flow of business and government operations.
employment status. Only the union officers who knowingly
participated In the strike and workers who knowingly 3. LBC, DHL, FEDEx Centers. Couriers are essential to
foreign and domestic business and government operations.
2008 Bar Questions in Labor Law (with Author’s Answers)

a) Explain the automatic renewal clause of collective

bargaining agreements. (3%)

[An automatic renewal clause, sometimes referred to as an

"evergreen clause" purports to continue the terms of the
contract or agreement indefinitely until the parties renegotiate
and ratify a successor agreement. An automatic renewal clause
is a cost item and it therefore does not bind the parties unless it
has been ratified by the body.

In the absence of a binding automatic renewal clause, a CBA

ends on its termination date. Once a CBA expires, while the
parties continue to negotiate for a successor agreement, their
obligations to one another are governed by the doctrine of
maintaining the status quo.

The principle of maintaining the status quo demands that all

terms and conditions of employment remain the same during
collective bargaining after a CBA has expired. This does not
mean that the expired CBA continues in effect; rather, it
means that the conditions under which the workers worked
endure throughout the collective bargaining process. ]

b) Explain the extent of workers’ right to participate in policy

and decision-making process as provided under Article XIII,
Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. Does it include
membership in the Board of Directors of a corporation. (3%)

[The workers have the right to participate in policy and

decision-making process on matters affecting their rights and
benefits. This participation can be through collective
bargaining, grievance machineries, voluntary modes of
settling disputes, and conciliation proceedings mediated by
government.

This right does not automatically include the right to

membership in the Board of Directors of a corporation, insofar
as Sec. 23 of the Corporation Code requires the directors to be
owners of at least one share of stock in a stock corporation,
and must be subsisting members in a non-stock corporation.
Cessation as stockholders or member, respectively,
automatically disqualifies them as directors. Moreover, a
majority of them must be Philippine residents.]