labor digests - set 4

7/24/2019 Labor Digests - Set 4

1/11

LABOR RELATIONSCASE DIGESTS SET 4

Unfair Labor Practices(Art 24!24"#

4$% REPUBLIC SA&INGS 's% CIR G%R% No% L!2)) Se*te+ber2,- ."/,

0ACTS1Republic Savings Bank (now RepublicBank or RB) discharged/terminatedprivate respondents Resuello, Jola etal, for having written and published "apatentl libelous letter, tending tocause the dishonor, discredit or

contempt not onl of o!cers andemploees of this bank, but also ofour emploer, the bank itself"Respondents had written to the bankpresident, Ramon Racelis, a letter#charge, demanding his resignation onthe grounds of immoralit, nepotismin the appointment and favoritism aswell as discrimination in the promotionof RB emploees

$%R ruled that RB&s act of dismissingthe ' respondent emploeesconstituted an unfair labor practicewithin the meaning and intendment ofthe %ndustrial eace ct (R '*+) RBappealed %t still maintains that thedischarge was for cause

RB&s defense $%R should havedismissed the complaint because thedischarge of the respondents had

nothing to do with their unionactivities as the latter in fact admittedat the hearing that the writing of theletter#charge was not a "union action"but merel their "individual" act

ISSUE1-. the dismissal of the ' emploeesb RB constituted unfair labor practice

within the meaning and intendment ofthe %ndustrial eace ct

ELD101S 1ven assuming that respondentsacted in their individual capacities

when the wrote the letter#chargethe were nonetheless protected forthe were engaged in concertedactivit, in the e2ercise of their rightof self#organi3ation that includesconcerted activit for mutual aid andprotection, interference with whichconstitutes an unfair labor practice4he 5oining in protestor demandseven b a small group of emploees, iin furtherance of their interests, is a

concerted activit protected b the%ndustrial eace ct %t is notnecessar that union activit beinvolved or that collective bargainingbe contemplated

Re Meaning of Duty to Bargain-hat the RB should have done was torefer the letter#charge to thegrievance committee 4his was itsdut, failing which it committed anunfair labor practice R '*+ whichmakes it an unfair labor practice foran emploer "to dismiss, discharge orotherwise pre5udice or discriminateagainst an emploee for having 6ledcharges or for having given or beingabout to give testimon under thisct"

$ollective bargaining does not endwith the e2ecution of an agreement %tis a continuous process 4he dut tobargain imposes on the parties duringthe term of their agreement themutual obligation 7to meet and confepromptl and e2peditiousl and ingood faith for the purpose of ad5ustingan grievances or 8uestion arisingunder such agreement9 and a

. : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


2/11

violation of this obligation is an unfairlabor practice

%nstead of stiAing criticism, RB shouldhave allowed the respondents to airtheir grievances ood faithbargaining re8uired of the Bank anopen mind and a sincere desire to

negotiate over grievances 4hegrievance committee, created in the$B, would have been an appropriateforum for such negotiation %ndeed,the grievance procedure is a part ofthe continuous process of collectivebargaining %t is intended to promote afriendl dialogue between labor andmanagement as a means of maintaining industrial peace

=isposition ppealed decision isCC%RD1=

4/% 3ISE CO% 's% 3CEU!NATU G%R% No% L!,/,2 October .)-.""

0ACTS14he management issued aDemorandum $ircular introducing apro6t#sharing scheme for itsmanagers and supervisors

Respondent @nion wrote to petitionerto ask that the union members beallowed to participate in the pro6t#sharing program 4he managementdenied the re8uest on the ground thatsuch participation was not provided inthe $B

-hen renegotiation of the $B wasapproaching, the management wroteto the @nion that it was willing toconsider including the union membersin the pro6t#sharing scheme providedthat the negotiations would beconcluded prior to =ecember EF'*

Sometime later, the compandistributed the pro6t#sharing bene6tnot onl to the managers andsupervisors but also to all rank#and6le emploees not covered b the $Bbecause the were e2cluded from thede6nition of bargaining unit

4his caused the respondent @nion to6le a notice of strike alleging thatpetitioner was guilt of unfair labopractice because the union werediscriminated against in the grant ofthe pro6t sharing bene6ts

ISSUE1-hether the grant b management ofpro6t sharing bene6ts to its non#unionmember emploees is discriminator

against its workers who are unionmembers and amounts to @;GELD1. etition ranted 4here can be nodiscrimination committed bpetitioner as the situation of the unionemploees are diHerent and distinctfrom the non#union emploees=iscrimination per se is not unlawful4here can be no discrimination wherethe emploees concerned are notsimilarl situated

4he grant b petitioner of pro6tsharing bene6ts to the emploeesoutside the "bargaining unit" fallsunder the ambit of its manageriaprerogative %t appears to have beendone in good faith and without ulteriormotive Dore so when as in this casethere is a clause in the $B where theemploees are classi6ed into thosewho are members of the union andthose who are not %n the case of theunion members, the derive theirbene6ts from the terms andconditions of the $B contract whichconstitute the law between thecontracting parties Both the emploe

2 : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


3/11

and the union members are bound bsuch agreement

4,% SELL OIL 3OR5ER6S UNION's% SELL OIL CO% O0 TE PILS% CIR

G%R% No% L!2/, 7a8 ).- .",.

0ACTS1Shell $o seek to dissolve its securitguard section in its andacan branch,notwithstanding its being embraced inthe then e2isting $B contract asrank#and#6le emploees So an actionfor reinstatement and pament of fullbackwages was 6led b the union

4he union made a decision that shouldthere be a replacement of thecompan guards b a private securitagenc, there would be a strikeIowever, the said E' securit guardswere transferred to the compan&sother branch and were thereafterterminated on the service 4hecompan then hired a private securitagenc to undertake the work of saidsecurit guards So a strike took inplace on + Darch EFK*, when thenewl hired guards was about to starttheir work

4he =epartment of ;abor tried toconciliate the parties but failed tosettle the issues raised @ntil aresidential certi6cation was issuedordering them to return#to#work on KJul EFK* b $%R b virtue of thepending resolution of the case $%Rrendered its decision in favor of thecompan and held strike as illegal forthe dissolution was a valid e2ercise ofmanagement prerogative and that no@; was committed b the compan

ISSUE1

-. the respondent court erred inholding that the strike was illegal andthat the dissolution of E' securitguards is a valid e2ercise ofmanagement prerogativesG

ELD1o 4he court held that the strike

cannot be declared illegal, there beinga violation of the collective bargainingagreement b Shell $ompan 1ven ifit were otherwise, however, this $ourtcannot lend sanction of its approval tothe outright dismissal of all uniono!cers, a move that certainl wouldhave the eHect of considerablweakening a labor organi3ation, andthus in eHect frustrate the polic ofthe %ndustrial eace ct to encourage

unioni3ation 4o the e2tent, howeverthat the serious acts of violenceoccurring in the course of the strikecould be made the basis for holdingresponsible a leader or a member ofthe union guilt of their commission,what was decided b respondent courshould not be disturbed

4he plain and un8uali6edconstitutional demand of protection tolabor should not be lost weight of 4hestate is thus under obligation to lendits aid and its succor to the eHorts ofits labor elements to improve theireconomic condition %t is nowgenerall accepted that unioni3ation isa means to such an end %t should beencouraged 4hereb, labor&sstrength, what there is of it, becomessolidi6ed %t can bargain as acollectivit Danagement then will notalwas have the upper hand nor be ina position to ignore its 5ust demands4hat, at an rate, is the polic behindthe %ndustrial eace ct

4he 5udiciar and administrativeagencies in construing it must ever beconscious of its implications .nl thus

) : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


4/11

ma there bee 6delit to what isordained b the fundamental law Corif it were otherwise, instead ofprotection, there would be neglect ordisregard 4hat is to negate thefundamental principle that the$onstitution is the supreme law

4% % ARONSON CO%- ET AL 's%ALU G%R% No% L!2). 9:;8 "- .",.

0ACTS1ronson, originall known as Doodronson L $o, %nc, was incorporatedin EFM, with an authori3ed capitalstock of +MMM,MMMMM and acorporate life of +M ears e2piring on

Da *, EF*M %n the course of time itbecame an ronson famil controlledcorporation

%n EF+', E? of its + emploeesbecame members of the respondentssociated ;abor @nion %n the monthof September of that ear, because ofthe dismissal of 1ugenia Solon, aunion member, her co#emploees whowere union members declared a strikewhich was soon settled as a result ofconciliation negotiations initiated bthe $ebu Regional .!ce of the=epartment of ;abor

Sometime thereafter, the respondent@nion and its members madedemands for a collective bargainingagreement with the $ompan toobtain certain bene6ts in connectionwith their working conditions -henthe $ompan refused to enter into acollective bargaining agreement, theemploees who were union membersdeclared a second strike in =ecemberof that ear 4he managementeventuall acceded to their demandsand entered into a collectivebargaining agreement with them on

Januar K, EF+F, the same havingbeen renewed Darch ?, EFKM %n thismanner the union members obtainedlabor bene6ts

.n Januar K, EFKM, management sentto the emploees of the $ompanletters of termination of emploment

due to 7poor business9 4hen onCebruar E?, EFKE ronsonNs originarticles of %ncorporation wereamended so that, instead of itscorporate e2istence e2piring on Da*, EF*M, it was made to e2pire Fears earlier.n Darch F, EFKE, or less than amonth after such amendment hadbeen accomplished, then ssistanDanager =onato Dedel was

incorporated with a capital stock oEMM,MMMMM, and on Jul E* of thesame ear, another new corporationhoto Daterials was also incorporatedwith an authori3ed capital stock oOMM,MMMMM 4he total authori3edcapital stock of the two newcorporations amounting to+MM,MMMMM was e2actl the sameauthori3ed capital stock of ronson

%t will thus be seen that the two newcorporations were organi3ed toengage in e2actl the same businessin which ronson had been engagedin other words, to take over thelatterNs business

.n Jul E+, EFKE, all the emploees ofronson who were members of therespondent @nion were re8uired tostop working in spite of the fact thataccording to the notice of terminationof emploment served on them, theirservices were to be terminated on the?Est of that month .n the otherhand, the emploees of the $ompanwho were not members of therespondent @nion were allowed tocontinue working up to that date, and

4 : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


5/11

thereafter the continued workingbecause the were absorbed or re#emploed b the newl organi3edcorporations hoto Daterials andDedel

4he emploees concerned 6led acomplaint for unfair labor practices to

which $%R found respondent#petitioners guilt and ordered them tocease and desist from such acts, andto reinstate the complainants to theirformer positions under the sameterms and conditions of emplomentwith back wages from the time thewere illegall dismissed until the areactuall reinstated 4heir motion forreconsideration having been deniedsubse8uentl b the court en banc,

the took the present appeal

ISSUE1E -. $%R had 5urisdiction over thecase, and -. it erred in 6nding thepetitioners guilt of unfair laborpractice

ELD1E 0es 4he $ourt held that $%R had5urisdiction over the case and thepetitioners hereinP that it correctlfound petitioners guilt of unfair laborpractice, and in granting to theindividual respondents the relief setforth in the appealed order 4heappealed .rder was a!rmed

o 4he shortening of the corporatelife or dissolution of ronson, and thesubse8uent incorporation of the othertwo petitioners were part and parcelof a plan, or were intended toaccomplish the dismissal of theindividual respondents, the $ourtconcluded 4heir contention that thedissolution of ronson was due to"poor business" is, upon the record,clearl without merit

4he true cause of the termination ofthe services of the complainants istheir membership with the ssociated;abor @nion and their union activities4his 6nding is supported b theantecedent facts that since itsestablishment in EFM the onl

instance when the management of theI ronson L $ompan began to 6ndinterference in the conduct of itsbusiness aHairs was in EF+' when thessociated ;abor @nion, to which thecomplainants are a!liated, declaredtwo strikes wherein the uniondecisivel got what it wanted from thereluctant management ttempts weremade b the management to breakthe ma5orit then held b the @nion

but it was not successful

4"% SAN 7IGUEL BRE3ER< SALES0ORCE

UNION (PTG3O# 's% ON% BLAS0% OPLE

an= S7C G%R% No% L!$)$.$ 0ebr:ar8 -.""

0ACTS1%n pril EF*', a $B was entered intob petitioner and the SD$ with aprovision entitling emploees to abasic monthl compensation pluscommission based on their respectivesales

%n September EF*F, the companintroduced a marketing schemeknown as the "$omplementar=istribution Sstem" ($=S) wherebits beer products were oHered for saledirectl to wholesalers through SanDiguelNs sales o!ces

4he labor union 6led a complaint fo@; in the Dinistr of ;abor, with anotice of strike on the ground that the

$ : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


6/11

$=S was contrar to the e2istingmarketing scheme whereb the RouteSalesmen were assigned speci6cterritories within which to sell theirstocks of beer, and wholesalers had tobu beer products from them, notfrom the compan %t was alleged thatthe new marketing scheme the $B as

the $=S would reduce the take#homepa of the salesmen and their truckhelpers for the compan would beunfairl competing with them

4he Dinister of ;abor approved theprivate respondentNs marketingscheme and dismissed the laborunionNs complaint for unfair laborpractice

ISSUE1-. the $=S violates the $B,constituting @;

RULING1o 4he lower court correctl held thatthe $=S is a valid e2ercise ofmanagement prerogatives So long asa companNs managementprerogatives are e2ercised in goodfaith for the advancement of theemploerNs interest and not for thepurpose of defeating or circumventingthe rights of the emploees underspecial laws or under validagreements

SD$Ns oHer to compensate themembers of its sales force who will beadversel aHected b theimplementation of the $=S b paingthem a so# called "back ad5ustmentcommission" to make up for thecommissions the might lose as aresult of the $=S proves thecompanNs good faith and lack ofintention to bust their union

$% CARLOS CRU>'s%PA0LU G%R% No% L!2/$." October 2"-.",.

0ACTS1Qualit $ontainer Cactor is a 5oint

business ventured b the 4an spousesemploing hired hands in themanufacture and sale of tin cans %nJanuar EFKE, these workers formed aunion called 4-., elected itso!cers and had it registered with the=epartment of ;abor

month later, the factor received anotice of its e2istence with theircollective bargaining proposals Bu

due to union&s unreasonable dela indiscussing the $B contract to thefactor, a complaint was 6led b thecompan against the unionotwithstanding the protest lodged b4-., C;@, b a ma5orit vote wasdeclared as the winning $Brepresentative of the factor&sworkers

fter the issue of certi6cation wasdecided b $%R, however, C;@proposed to continue the negotiationsto possibl 6nali3e a $B contractwith the management but a monthlater, the factor was sold to $arlos$ru3

C;@ then instituted an actionagainst the 4an spouses for @; $%Rsustained the claim of C;@ that thesale of the factor was tainted b badfaith and designed to avoid bargainingcollectivel with it as the dul chosenrepresentative of such emploee ndan order was given for thereinstatement of union members withfull backwages

ISSUE1

/ : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


7/11

-. $%R erred in holding the failure ofthe factor owners to bargaincollectivel and the sale of the factoras unfair labor practice, tainted withbad faith

RULING1o 4he $ourt held that the

assignment of error of petitioners asto the absence of bad faith appears tobe without su!cient legal basis$learl, the failure of the 4an spousesto bargain collectivel withrespondent @nion when the werecalled to do so was unfair laborpractice, compounded b anotheractuation amounting to discriminationin regard to tenure or condition ofemploment against a labor union

pparentl in an eHort to avoid thelegal conse8uences of such conductfrowned upon b the law, connivanceof petitioner $ru3 was elicitedecessar the sale was attended withbad faith

Respondent Judge $o was not blind tosuch an attempt at evasion %t refusedto countenance the resulting dismissalof the members respondent @nion %tordered the reinstatement %tsdecision far from being repugnant tolaw is in conform with it 4his certainlcannot be one of those cases whichthe 5udgment arrived at b respondent$ourt is to ignored, much less setaside

4he case was remanded to $%R forfurther proceedings

$.% BATAAN SIP


8/11

of self#organi3ation 4his interferenceis considered an act of @;$2% TANDUA< DISTILLER< LABORUNION

's% NLRC G%R% No% ,$), A*ri; )- .",

0ACTS1

4andua =istiller, %nc (4=%) and4andua =istiller ;abor @nion (4=;@)entered into a $B which contained a7union securit clause,9 whichprovided 7ll workers who are or maduring the eHectivit of this $ontract,become members of the @nion inaccordance with its $onstitution andB#;aws shall, as a condition of theircontinued emploment, maintainmembership in good standing in the

@nion for the duration of theagreement9

-hile the $B was still in eHect, anumber of the 4=;@, 5oined anotherunion, the aisahan gDanggagawang ilipino (D%;) andorgani3ed its local chapter in 4=%

4he 4=;@ re8uired those whodisa!liated to e2plain wh theshould not be punished for7disloalt9 4=;@ created acommittee to investigate its erringmembers 4he committeerecommended that the disa!liatingmembers be e2pelled and that theshould be terminated from service inpursuant to the union securit clausecting on said re8uest, the companterminated the emploment of thedisa!liating union members

ISSUE1-hether the dismissal of thedisa!liating members pursuant to asecurit clause constitutes @;

ELD1

. 4he private respondents cannotescape the eHects of the securitclause of their own applicable $B@nion Securit $lauses in $B, iffreel and voluntaril entered into, arevalid and binding 4hus, the dismissaof an emploee b the companpursuant to a labor union&s demand in

accordance with a union securitagreement does not constitute @;

4he respondent emploer did nothingbut to put in force their agreementwhen it separated the hereincomplainants upon therecommendation of said union Such astipulation is not onl necessar tomaintain loalt and preserve theintegrit of the union but is allowed b

the Dagna $harta of ;abor when iprovided that while it is recogni3edthat an emploee shall have the rightto self#organi3ation, it is at the sametime postulated that such right shalnot in5ure the right of the labororgani3ation to prescribe its own ruleswith respect to the ac8uisition oretention of membership therein

%n >illar v %nciong, we held that"petitioners, although entitled todisa!liation from their union and toform a new organi3ation of their ownmust however, suHer theconse8uences of their separation fromthe union under the securit clause ofthe $B9

$)% INSULAR LI0E EAU!NATU 's% INSULAR LI0E ASSURANCE CO%-LTD% G%R% No% L!2$2". 7a8 $- .",,

0ACTS1@nions %nsular ;ife ssurance 1#4@and C@ %nsurance roup -orkers L1#4@ entered into separate $Bswith %nsular and C@

: ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


9/11

%n EF+*, the @nions 5ointl submittedproposals to the $ompanies for amodi6ed renewal of their respectivecollective bargaining contracts whichwere then about to e2pireegotiations were conducted on the@nionNs proposals, but were snagged

b a deadlock on the issue of unionshop s a result of which, the @nions6led in Januar EF+' a notice of strikefor "deadlock on collectivebargaining"

Collowing the failure of the $ompaniesto answer the demands of the @nionswith counter#proposals, the @nionswent on strike n attempt of themanagement to break thru the

@nionsN picket lines during the strikeresulted to in5uries lleging that somenon#strikers were in5ured, the$ompanies 6led criminal chargesagainst the strikers, along with apetition for in5unction with damages,which was granted

Before readmission, the $ompaniesre8uired of the emploees clearancesfrom the $it CiscalNs .!ce of Danilaand for them to undergo screening ba management committee, whichadamantl refused ?O o!cials andmembers of the @nions who weremost active in the strike, on theground that the committed "actsinimical to the interest of therespondents," without however statingthe speci6c acts allegedl committed

.n even date, the $%R prosecutor 6leda complaint for unfair labor practiceagainst the $ompanies, which 6ledtheir answer dening all the materialallegations of the complaint andasking for dismissal fter trial on themerits, the $%R dismissed the @nionsNcomplaint for lack of merit 4he @nions

seasonabl 6led their DCR, but wasdenied, hence, this petition

ISSUES1-. $%R erred in not 6nding the$ompanies guilt of unfair labopracticea in sending out individual ultimatum

letters,b for discriminating against thestriking members of the @nions in thematter of readmission of emploeesafter the strikec for dismissing o!cials andmembers of the @nionsP andd in not ordering the reinstatement ofo!cials and members of the @nionswith full back wages

ELD1a 0es 4he said letters were directedto the striking emploees individuallcontaining a promise of bene6tthreats and reprisal b registeredspecial deliver mail at that withoutbeing coursed through the @nionswhich were representing theemploees in the collectivebargaining

b 0es =espite securing theirrespective clearances, ?O o!cials andunion members were still refusedreadmission on the alleged groundthat the committed acts inimical tothe $ompanies 4his wasdiscriminator to the fact that nonstrikers who also had pending criminacharges against them arising from thesame incidents were readilreadmitted and were not re8uired tosecure clearances %t is a violation ofthe %

c 0es Record shows that not a singledismissed striker was given theopportunit to defend himself againstthe supposed charges against himnd when the striking emploees

" : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang


10/11

reported back for work, the$ompanies refused to readmit themwithout the necessar clearances ndwhen all, e2cept three, were able tosecure and subse8uentl present there8uired clearances, the respondentsstill refused to take them back andinstead the received letters

con6rming the termination of theiremploment due to 7acts of misconduct9 while picketing duringthe strike

d 0es 4he lower court should haveordered the reinstatement of theo!cials and members of the @nions,with full back wages as it is clear thatthe @nions went on strike because ofthe unfair labor practices committed

b the $ompanies -here the strikewas induced and provoked bimproper conduct on the part of anemploer amounting to an Nunfairlabor practice,N the strikers areentitled to reinstatement with backpa

ccordingl, the decision of the $%Rwas reversed and set aside, andanother is entered, ordering therespondents to reinstate thedismissed members of the petitioning@nions to their former orcomparativel similar positions, withbackwages

$4% 7ANILA OTEL CO7PAN< 's%PINES OTEL E7PLO


11/11

consolidated with the 6rst case, alongwith a praer for an e2#parterestraining order be issued againsttheir abrupt dismissal or termination$%R took cogni3ance of the unionNspetition and called the partiesimmediatel to a conference, whereDanila Iotel e2pressl manifested

that it was willing to grant retirementgratuit to all the emploees, whohave served for M ears or more,e2pressl referring to EK out of 'Kemploees who were terminated

otwithstanding petitionerNs havingdeposited with respondent courtpursuant to its own oHer the sum ofEMM,MMMMM through its check, it still8uestioned the issuance of the order

on grounds of alleged lack of5urisdiction and impropriet thereof-ith its appeal denied b $%R, it 6ledanother petition which was docketedas L!).)"

%n connection with the same sale onDarch ', EFK' of the ines Iotel andthe abrupt termination of all itsemploees, Danila Iotel&s Bo=subse8uentl approved the pamentof retirement gratuit to the greaterremainder of *M emploees who hadnot completed M ears of service andwere not 8uali6ed under theRetirement ;aw

$iting the various manifestations inthe record of petitionerNs willingnessto pa such gratuit, respondent courtissued its order of Cebruar *, EFKFfor the pament of such gratuit note2ceeding E months to the remaining*M emploees who have rendered oneear to nineteen ears of service topetitioner compan etitioner onceagain raised the same 8uestions of5urisdiction and propriet of the $%R&sissuance of said pament order and

with its DCR denied, it 6led anotherappeal, docketed as L!).

ISSUES1E -. the etitionerNs was correct in

claiming that the order of the court(as regards ;#?ME?F) was pre5udicial -. the $ourt acted out of its5urisdiction (as regards ;#?ME?') inissuing the appealed pament order othe *M emploees

ELD1E o -hat the union had actuall6led on Darch ', EFK' was aseparate "@rgent petition with prae

for a restraining order" o pre5udicecould be said to have been caused topetitioner thereb, for the ver meritof the union complaint is borne out bthe fact that the parties promptlarrived at a satisfactor settlementthereof upon petitionerNs undertakingto pa retirement gratuit to all 'KaHected emploees

o s the petitioner has in nomanner 8uestioned or disputed thefactual bases and 6ndings of $%R as toits undertaking and agreement in therecord to pa the retirement gratuitto the emploees, b wa ofsettlement of their dispute arisingfrom the protested abrupt terminationof their emploment with the suddensale of the ines Iotel to a third partthe court acted within its 5urisdictionwhen it properl assumed ofimplementing the ver agreement andsettlement for pament of retirementgratuit arrived at b the parties inthe case before it

.. : ;B.R R1;4%.S < =igested $ases : >enessa Barbiran, 0ear ? : @ang

labor digests - set 4

Documents