Random Bar Questions Labor Law

Labor Law Random Bar Questions
Labor Law Question #3 (2013)
Inter-Garments Co. manufactures garments for export and requires its employees to
render overtime work ranging from two to three hours a day to meet its clients�
deadlines. Since 2009, it has been paying its employees on overtime an additional
35% of their hourly rate for work rendered in excess of their regular eight working
hours.
Due to the slowdown of its export business in 2012, Inter-Garments had to reduce
its overtime work; at the same time, it adjusted the overtime rates so that those
who worked overtime were only paid an additional 25%instead of the previous 35%. To
replace the workers� overtime rate loss, the company granted a one-time 5% across-
the-board wage increase.
Vigilant Union, the rank-and-file bargaining agent, charged the company with Unfair
Labor Practice on the ground that (1) no consultations had been made on who would
render overtime work; and (2) the unilateral overtime pay rate reduction is a
violation of Article 100 (entitled Prohibition Against Elimination or Diminution of
Benefits) of the Labor Code.
Is the union position meritorious? (8%)

Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial assistance. Only the
company appealed from the Labor Arbiter�s ruling. It confined its appeal solely to
the question of whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of
ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiter�s decision;
it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of
separation pay and full backwages.
Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker
Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that the NLRC acted
with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when
the only issue brought on appeal was the legal propriety of the financial
assistance award.
Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the
authority to �correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in
substance or in form� in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decide the case. (8%)
Jose and Erica, former sweethearts, both worked as sales representatives for Magna,
a multinational firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical
products. Although the couple had already broken off their relationship, Jose
continued to have special feelings for Erica.
One afternoon, Jose chanced upon Erica riding in the car of Paolo, a co-employee
and Erica�s ardent suitor; the two were on their way back to the office from a
sales call on Silver Drug, a major drug retailer. In a fit of extreme jealousy,
Jose rammed Paolo�s car, causing severe injuries to Paolo and Erica. Jose�s flare
up also caused heavy damage to the two company-owned cars they were driving.
(A) As lawyer for Magna, advise the company on whether just and valid grounds exist
to dismiss Jose. (4%)
(B) Assuming this time that Magna dismissed Jose from employment for cause and you
are the lawyer of Jose, how would you argue the position that Jose�s dismissal was
illegal? (4%)
Due to serious business reverses, ABC Co. decided to terminate the services of
several officers receiving �fat� compensation packages. One of these officers was
Mr. X, its Vice-President for External Affairs and a member of the Board of
Directors. Aggrieved, Mr. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the
National labor Relations Commission (NLRC) � Regional Arbitration Branch.
ABC Co. moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
asserting that since Mr. X occupied the position of Vice-President for External
Affairs which is listed in the by-laws of the corporation, the case should have
been tiled before the Regional Trial Court.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) denied ABC Co.�s motion and proceeded to rule that Mr. X was
illegally dismissed. Hence, he was reinstated in ABC Co.�s payroll pending its
appeal to the NLRC.
(a) Did the LA err in denying ABC Co.�s motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Assuming the LA�s ruling of illegal dismissal with finality, may ABC Co. claim
reimbursement for the amounts it paid to Mr. X during the time that he was on
payroll reinstatement pending appeal? Explain. (2.5%)
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement
benefits after having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school
since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a summer term for the school year
1974-1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching until
2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at the start of every semester and
summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he could no longer teach because
he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso�s claim for
retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served
for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their employment,
can avail themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty member,
Narciso did not acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations
for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of
service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)
(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed

in the absence of any contract between him and Norte University providing for such
benefits? (2.5%)

Random Bar Questions Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Random Bar Questions Labor Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Random Bar Questions Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Law Random Bar Questions

Labor Law Question #3 (2013)

Is the union position meritorious? (8%)

Decide the case. (8%)

Labor Law Question #1 (2013)

Labor Law Question #12 (2019)

Labor Law Question #1 (2018)

(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)

(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed

You might also like