8/13/2019 labor+p.23

1/2

b) Speech, espionage, economic coercion

Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. EmployeesAssociation vs. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd.

c) Concerted activities

P!E" vs. P! Co.

#. $on%union membership or &ithdra&al frommembership as a condition for employment'(ello&%og Contract)

Article #*+ 'b)

isayan Stevedore -rans. Co vs. $LC

/uic0 1acts2 137 UWFA seasonal workers weredismissed by the company. The workers filed aULP case with the !" of eb# and r#led in theirfa$or. ompany appealed.

uling3atio2 There was employer%employeerelationship. The workers who were not admitted towork belon& to the Union and the ompany 'ranch(ana&er told them that the severance ofconnection with the UWFA was the remedy if theywanted to continue working with the company.

4. Contracting out to discourage union

Article #*+ 'c)

Comple5 Electronics Employees Associationvs. $LC

/uic0 1acts2 onsolidated case where the #nionp#shed for retrenchment pay of 1mo)yr. ompanyref#sed the #nion*s demand. Union filed a notice ofstrike+ and company transferred its machinery toanother site.

uling3atio2una&ay shop 6 relocation moti$ated by anti%#nion anim#s than b#siness reasons

!n this case+ there was no r#naway shop. The #nionfailed to show that the primary reason for theclos#re of the company was #nion acti$ities. Therewas no ille&al locko#t b#t a complete cessation ofb#siness+ which was well within the mana&ementprero&ati$e.

*. Company domination of union '(ello& 7nion)

Article #*+ 'd), #8# 'i)

Progressive evelopment Corporation vs. CI

/uic0 1acts2P, dismissed members of A-Awho ref#sed to disaffiliate and oin P-U.

atio2adges of a company union

% P-U ne$er collected d#es from its members% P-U members are now relar employees

% The #nion became inacti$e after the deathof P,*s co#nsel

% After winnin& the certification election+ the#nion ne$er entered into a 'A #ntil itdisbanded

9. iscrimination to encourage or discourageunionism

Article #*+ 'e), #*: 'b)

alid iscrimination2 7nion Security Clause

el !onte Philippines Inc. vs. ;aldivar

/uic0 1acts2Timbal was dismissed d#e to #nionsec#rity cla#se in a 'A between ALU and ,el(onte /for disloyalty0. LA+ L"+ and A held thatshe was ille&ally dismissed /false testimony0.

atio22tip#lations in the 'A a#thoriin& dismissaof employees are of e4#al import as the &ro#nds fodismissal on the Labor ode. !t is not a restrictionof the ri&ht or freedom of association.

5owe$er+ in this case+ it was fo#nd that thetestimony of the one who implicated Timbal was ill%moti$ated. The ,isloyalty 'oard was alsoor&anied by the federation. 2ome ne#tral bodysho#ld ha$e decided on the dismissal.

Elcee 1arms vs. $LC

/uic0 1acts2 omplaint for ille&al dismissal filed by163 employees of -lcee Farms. The company wasthen leased to arnelle+ then arnelle s#bleasedthe property to 5!LLA. The latter entered into a

'A with U2F8 with a closed shop pro$ision./5eld9 Pro$ision $alid0

8/13/2019 labor+p.23

2/2

/uic0 1acts2:ose 'aldo was dismissed and airedhis complaint thro#&h &rie$ance proced#re. Whilethe case was pendin&+ he was asked not to testifyon a certification election proceedin&+ b#t he did.The rie$ance ommittee dropped his case.

=eld2 There was ULP.

C.4 >ross violation of the CA

Article #*+ 'i), #*: 'f), #