Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 532 views

    Master Iron Labor Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Rochelle Joy Solis
    This case involves a labor dispute between Master Iron Works Construction Corporation and the Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) regarding the Corporation's practice of subcontracting work normally performed by regular union workers and failure to follow the grievance procedure outlined in their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike conducted by MILU was legal as the Corporation refused to participate in the grievance process as required. The Court also ordered the Corporation to reinstate the workers involved in the dispute with backpay and to cease subcontracting union work.

    Copyright:

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

    Master Iron Labor Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Rochelle Joy Solis
    532 views2 pages
    This case involves a labor dispute between Master Iron Works Construction Corporation and the Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) regarding the Corporation's practice of subcontracting work normally performed by regular union workers and failure to follow the grievance procedure outlined in their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike conducted by MILU was legal as the Corporation refused to participate in the grievance process as required. The Court also ordered the Corporation to reinstate the workers involved in the dispute with backpay and to cease subcontracting union work.

    Original Title

    Master Iron Labor Union vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a labor dispute between Master Iron Works Construction Corporation and the Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) regarding the Corporation's practice of subcontracting work normally performed by regular union workers and failure to follow the grievance procedure outlined in their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike conducted by MILU was legal as the Corporation refused to participate in the grievance process as required. The Court also ordered the Corporation to reinstate the workers involved in the dispute with backpay and to cease subcontracting union work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    532 views2 pages

    Master Iron Labor Union Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Rochelle Joy Solis
    This case involves a labor dispute between Master Iron Works Construction Corporation and the Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) regarding the Corporation's practice of subcontracting work normally performed by regular union workers and failure to follow the grievance procedure outlined in their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the strike conducted by MILU was legal as the Corporation refused to participate in the grievance process as required. The Court also ordered the Corporation to reinstate the workers involved in the dispute with backpay and to cease subcontracting union work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Period to Resolve Grievance Machinery?

    Title: GR No. 92009


    Master Iron Labor Union vs NLRC
    Ponente: MELO, J. Date: February 17, 1993

    DOCTRINE:

    A grievance procedure is part of the continuous process of collective bargaining.

    Presumption of legality prevails even if the allegations of unfair labor practices are subsequently
    found out to be untrue.

    FACTS:

    The Master Iron Works Construction Corporation (Corporation for brevity) is a duly organized
    corporate entity engaged in steel fabrication and other related business activities. Sometime in
    February 1987, the Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) entered into a collective bargaining
    agreement (CBA) with the Corporation for the three-year period between December 1, 1986 and
    November 30, 1989.

    Right after the signing of the CBA, the Corporation subcontracted outside workers to do the usual
    jobs done by its regular workers including those done outside of the company plant. As a result,
    the regular workers were scheduled by the management to work on a rotation basis allegedly to
    prevent financial losses thereby allowing the workers only ten (10) working days a month.Thus,
    MILU requested implementation of the grievance procedure which had also been agreed upon in
    the CBA, but the Corporation ignored the request.

    Consequently, MILU filed a notice of strike with DOLE .Upon the intervention of the DOLE, the
    Corporation acceded to give back the usual work to its regular employees who are members of
    MILU

    Notwithstanding said agreement, the Corporation continued the practice of hiring outside
    workers. Calls for conciliation made by MILU were ignored. MILU filed another notice of strike
    and staged the same.

    The Corporation filed with the NLRC a petition to declare the strike illegal.

    MILU filed a counter-complaint before the NLRC. In said counter-complaint, the workers charged
    the Corporation with unfair labor practice for subcontracting work that was normally done by its
    regular workers thereby causing the reduction of the latter's workdays; illegal suspension of
    Abulencia without any investigation discrimination for hiring casual workers in violation of the
    CBA, and illegal dispersal of the picket lines by CAPCOM agents .

    LA: Declared the strike illegal and affirmed the termination of petotioners

    NLRC: Affirmed LA’s decision

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the strike was illegal.

    RULING:

    No. The Strike was legal.

    Private respondent's failure to traverse petitioner's allegation that the NLRC abused its
    discretion in holding that the provision on grievance procedure had not been exhausted clearly
    sustains such allegation and upholds the petitioners' contention that the Corporation refused to
    undergo said procedure. It should be remembered that a grievance procedure is part of the
    continuous process of collective bargaining (Republic Savings Bank vs. CIR, et al., 21 SCRA 226
    [1967]). It is intended to promote a friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means
    of maintaining industrial peace.

    All told, the strike staged by the petitioners was a legal one even though it may have been called
    to offset what the strikers believed in good faith to be unfair labor practices on the part of the
    employer (Ferrer, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 17 SCRA 352 [1966]). Verily, such
    presumption of legality prevails even if the allegations of unfair labor practices are subsequently
    found out to be untrue.

    MISC DETAILS:

    WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC as well as the decision of the
    Labor Arbiter are hereby SET ASIDE and the individual petitioners are reinstated to their
    positions, with three years backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.
    Further, Respondent corporation is ordered to desist from subcontracting work usually performed
    by its regular workers.

    You might also like