Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 830 views

    Lakas NG Mangagagawang Makabayan Vs Marcelo Enterprise & Divine

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    1) Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan filed an unfair labor practice case against Marcelo Enterprise for refusing to bargain and for not readmitting striking workers. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marcelo Enterprise. 2) Marcelo Enterprise was not obligated to bargain with Lakas since there was no proof that Lakas was the legitimate bargaining representative. The company's requests for proof of majority representation were made in good faith. 3) The striking workers were initially readmitted and a form was used for work scheduling only, not to prevent readmission. Therefore, no unfair labor practice was committed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lakas NG Mangagagawang Makabayan Vs Marcelo Enterprise & Divine

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    830 views4 pages
    1) Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan filed an unfair labor practice case against Marcelo Enterprise for refusing to bargain and for not readmitting striking workers. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marcelo Enterprise. 2) Marcelo Enterprise was not obligated to bargain with Lakas since there was no proof that Lakas was the legitimate bargaining representative. The company's requests for proof of majority representation were made in good faith. 3) The striking workers were initially readmitted and a form was used for work scheduling only, not to prevent readmission. Therefore, no unfair labor practice was committed.

    Original Description:

    Lakas Ng Mangagagawang Makabayan vs Marcelo Enterprise & Divine LABOR RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES

    Original Title

    Lakas Ng Mangagagawang Makabayan vs Marcelo Enterprise & Divine

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan filed an unfair labor practice case against Marcelo Enterprise for refusing to bargain and for not readmitting striking workers. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marcelo Enterprise. 2) Marcelo Enterprise was not obligated to bargain with Lakas since there was no proof that Lakas was the legitimate bargaining representative. The company's requests for proof of majority representation were made in good faith. 3) The striking workers were initially readmitted and a form was used for work scheduling only, not to prevent readmission. Therefore, no unfair labor practice was committed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    830 views4 pages

    Lakas NG Mangagagawang Makabayan Vs Marcelo Enterprise & Divine

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    1) Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan filed an unfair labor practice case against Marcelo Enterprise for refusing to bargain and for not readmitting striking workers. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marcelo Enterprise. 2) Marcelo Enterprise was not obligated to bargain with Lakas since there was no proof that Lakas was the legitimate bargaining representative. The company's requests for proof of majority representation were made in good faith. 3) The striking workers were initially readmitted and a form was used for work scheduling only, not to prevent readmission. Therefore, no unfair labor practice was committed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    LAKAS NG MANGAGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN VS MARCELO ENTERPRISE

    GR. NO. L-38258


    J. GUERERO
    FACTS:
    On May 23, 1967, the Lakas had existing CBAs within the bargaining units in the respective companies
    comprising Marcelo Companies. The said CBAs were entered into while they were affiliated with a
    national federation, Phil Social Security Labor Union.
    Two of the CBAs were about to expire in May and June 1967. The other one faced conflict as there was a
    rival union.
    On March 14, 1967, the management of Marcelo Steel received a letter requesting negotiation of a new
    CBA from PSSLU in behalf of UNWU. There were also proposals from the unions in Marcelo Tire and
    Marcelo Rubber as the existing CBA was about to expire. Same day, the union oin Marcelo Tire
    disauthorized PSSLU as their agent. Afterwards, the rival union submitted ita own proposals.
    Another requests were received on May 3, 1967 and May 23, 1967 from two different unions.
    As the management was confused as to which of the union really represents the workers, the president
    asked for the proof of authorization from the unions and they were informed of the conflicting claims and
    suggested that they file for certification election and the decision of the court shall be followed and
    respected.
    PSSLU refused the suggestion of the management and said that they will file ULP for refusing to bargain
    with them. All of the unuons subsequently filed a Notice of Strike.
    MUEWA was certified as the bargaining agent as it represents the majority of the workers in Marcelo Tire
    and that there were no oppositions from the other union or interested persons.
    Notices of Strike were withdrawn and the management agreed to sit down in a conference for the
    bargaining. On the fourth conference, Lakas declared a strike against Marcelo Companies. Acts of
    violence and vandalism attended by picketing, the premises were blocked, windows of the plants were
    bad.y damaged.
    Cases were filed against the strikers and a Return to Work order was agreed upon. Marcelo Companies
    resumed its operations and strikers went back to work.

    Marcelo Companies and Lakas resumed their bargaining negotiations.


    On Oct. 13, 1967 the negotiations reached its final stage. Then Lakas declared another strike without
    filing a notice of strike resulting to complete paralyzation of the business.
    Notices to return to work were posted and some of the strikers started working again. The management
    required the workers to fill up forms so that they may be given a schedule. However, the workers refused
    and insisted that they be admitted without complying to the said requirement.
    Lakas then filed a ULP case based on the alleged fact of non readmission of striking members.
    The trial court ruled that the Marcelo Companies were not remiss in their obligation to bargain and that the
    strikes conducted were illegal. However, it was decided that there was ULP in not readmitting all the
    strikers.
    ISSUE:
    -Whether or not Marcelo Companies are guilty of ULP
    -legitimate representation
    HELD:
    The SC ruled in favor of Marcelo Companies. Lakas was not the bargaining representative, yet the
    management did not ignore the demand for collective bargaining neither it was refused.
    Marcelo Companies may rightfully demand for reasonable proof of majority representation on the part of
    the supposed or putative bargaining agent as it is a natural consequence of the employers duty to
    bargain with the bargaining agent who represents the majority of the workers. It is, however, necessary
    that such demand is made in good faith and not as a pretext of delay or evasion.
    Marcelo Companies did not commit ULP. The facts of the case shows that the strikers were readmitted to
    work and the form required was intended for proper scheduling and not to prevent workers from coming
    back to work. It is only those who did not report back to work who are not readmitted.
    DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN VS SECRETARY OF LABOR
    GR NO 91915
    J. ROMERO
    FACTS:
    On Sept 6, 1984 the med-arbiter certified the Divine Word University Employees Union as the sole and

    exclusive bargaining agent of the Divine Word University. The union submitted its proposals on March 7,
    1985. The Universitys reply requested that a preliminary conference be held on May 28, 1985. Before the
    conference the VP of the union resigned and withdrew the proposals hence the PC was cancelled.
    After three years, the affiliate of the union, Associated Labor Union, requested a conference with the
    University for the purposes of continuing the bargaining negotiations. Not having heard from the
    university, a follow up request was sent and warned the university from intereference. The university
    maintained it silence.
    The union thereafter filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP, refusal to
    bargain, discrimination and coercion. Conferences were held after the filing of the notice of strike and the
    parties came to an agreement.
    It was found however, that the university filed for a petition for certification election one hour before the
    agreement was concluded.
    The union then submitted proposals which were again ignored by the university. Marathon conciliations
    were held to no avail.
    The Sec of Labor assumed jurisdiction and directed that all striking workers to report back to work within
    24 hours.
    The med-arbiter issued an order directing the conduct of the certification election. To Which the Sec of
    Labor directed to hold in abeyance. The Sec of Labor dismissed the cases of ULP filed by the union and
    the university.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not certification election can be held after CBA was agreed upon after 5 years.
    HELD:
    An employer who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election any time
    except upon clear showing the existence of either:
    1) petition is filed within one year from the issuance of a final certification election result OR
    2) when a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the
    subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout.

    Deadlock is the counteraction of things producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization
    caused by the opposition of persons or factions. There is a deadlock when there is a complete blocking or
    stoppage resulting from the action of equal and opposed forces.
    The records of the case shows that there was no reasonable effort at good faith bargaining on the part of
    the university.
    Procedure:
    1) proposal
    2) conference in case of differences
    3) conciliation
    4) the parties are prohibited from exercising acts which would impede or disrupt the early settlement of
    the case
    5) exert efforts for amicable settlement
    The union after submitting proposals which were ignored by the university, remained passive. Technically,
    the university has the right to file the petition for certification election as there was no bargaining deadlock.
    However such right was forfeited by its inaction.

    You might also like