Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Schering Employees Labor Union Vs Schering (2005) J. Sandoval-Gutierrez - I. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    The union alleged the company committed an unfair labor practice by dismissing the union president. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC that the dismissal was valid. The union president was remised in her duties by not responding to notices about her poor performance and by falsifying company call cards and food receipts. While the union alleged unfair labor practices, it did not substantiate the allegations. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Schering Employees Labor Union Vs Schering (2005) J. Sandoval-Gutierrez - I. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    32 views1 page
    The union alleged the company committed an unfair labor practice by dismissing the union president. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC that the dismissal was valid. The union president was remised in her duties by not responding to notices about her poor performance and by falsifying company call cards and food receipts. While the union alleged unfair labor practices, it did not substantiate the allegations. The petition was dismissed.

    Original Title

    05. Selu-vs-Schering-Plough

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The union alleged the company committed an unfair labor practice by dismissing the union president. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC that the dismissal was valid. The union president was remised in her duties by not responding to notices about her poor performance and by falsifying company call cards and food receipts. While the union alleged unfair labor practices, it did not substantiate the allegations. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    Schering Employees Labor Union Vs Schering (2005) J. Sandoval-Gutierrez - I. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Francis Masiglat
    The union alleged the company committed an unfair labor practice by dismissing the union president. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC that the dismissal was valid. The union president was remised in her duties by not responding to notices about her poor performance and by falsifying company call cards and food receipts. While the union alleged unfair labor practices, it did not substantiate the allegations. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Schering Employees Labor Union vs Schering Complainant’s failure to refute point by point the

    (2005) specific charges levied against her worked to her


    J. Sandoval-Gutierrez disadvantage. All told, it would appear that it was
    ____________________________________ not respondent who relied on the general principles
    of law but rather the complainant and unfortunately
    I. FACTS the Labor Arbiter a quo who opted to brush aside
    the claim of valid dismissal through a sweeping
    statement that no supporting substantial evidence
    The Schering Employees Labor Union alleges that
    were presented by respondent when in truth and in
    corporation committed ULP because of the dismissal
    fact, there were. Relatedly, even the claim of denial
    of union president Lucia P. Sereneo.
    of due process should not have escaped the Labor
    Arbiter’s judicious eyes had he been more prudent.
    They also claim that Sereneo was employed as a The records clearly show that complainant was
    professional medical representative in 1977 and was accorded the right to be heard as she was given
    eventually promoted as a field sales training ample time to explain and answer the charges
    manager receiving multiple awards from the against her but opted not to on account of the
    corporation. mistaken notion that to do so would only be an
    exercise in futility.
    However, on January 22 1996, after being elected
    union president and starting CBA renegotiations the After a close review of the records, the SC sustained
    company was suddenly dissatisfied with her the findings of the NLRC, affirmed by the Court of
    performance. She was first sent a notice to explain Appeals, that she falsified company call cards by
    why she failed to implement marketing projects then altering the dates of her actual visits to physicians.
    a month later was asked to comment on a complaint On August 27, 1997, she was found guilty of
    for misappropriation of company funds, tampering misappropriation of company funds by falsifying
    or records and submission of false reports food receipts. These infractions show that she is
    dishonest. Clearly, she breached the trust reposed in
    This prompted the union to file a notice of strike her by respondents.
    with the NCMB on the grounds of ULP and union
    busting. The NCMB dismissed the notice of strike In Tiu vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that it is
    and the company thereafter terminated Sereneo’s the union, therefore, who had the burden of proof to
    services for loss of trust and confidence present substantial evidence to support its
    allegations (of unfair labor practices committed by
    The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Union. The management) but in the case at bar the facts and
    the evidence did not establish even at least a
    NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and it was
    rational basis why the union would wield a strike
    affirmed by the CA.
    based on alleged unfair labor practices it did not
    even bother to substantiate during the conciliation
    II. ISSUE: proceedings. It is not enough that the union
    believed that the employer committed acts of unfair
    W/N Schering is guilty of Unfair Labor Practice – NO labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate
    even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief.
    III. RULING:
    IV. DISPOSITIVE:
    The Supreme Court agrees with NLRC.
    PETITION DISMISSED.
    The complainant was indeed remised in her duties:
    1) she did not reply to the two notices mentioned
    earlier;
    2) her call cards were altered.

    You might also like