Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-1 212 Case Title / Issue Brotherhood Labor Unity vs. Zamora (1987) (Major: WON an Ee-Er relationship exists b/n petitionersmembers of the "Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines" (BLUM) and San Miguel Corporation) Facts Charge: unfair labor practice, i.e., ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant union; and that management dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their union membership SMC's defense: (1) complainants are not and have never been Ees of SMC but Ees of the independent contractor; (2) no control over the means and methods; (3) Complainants are barred by estoppel from asserting that they are SMC Ees. Worked on the average of 7 years as "cargadores" or "pahinante" in SMC glass plant Ees reported to Superintendent-in-charge Tools, equipment & paraphernalia provided by SMC Job orders came from superintendent Work was neither regular nor continuous, i.e., volume depends on SMC's business activity Ees never paid OT pay Ees paid on a piece-rate basis Pay check given to group leaders who prepare Ees' payroll for which the former get 10% earnings 140 petitioner-Ees affiliated themselves w/ Petitioner Union, i.e., OT and holiday pay, below minimum wage, inhuman treatment, borrow at usurious rates, buy raffle tickets, withholding salaries, & unconsented salary deductions. Union filed a notice of strike with Bureau of Labor Relations re: dismissal of fellow members for union membership Ruling/Ratio Ratio: If there is NO Er-Ee relationship between the parties there is NO basis for organizing for purposes of collective bargaining (Azucena, 2010). On Er-Ee Rel, Control test : (1) selection & engagement; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; & (4) power to control the means and methods - Conclusion: presence of Er-Ee relationship - SMC asserted Ees of an independent contractor On Independent Contractor Criteria (Rule): (1) carrying on an independent business; (2) the nature and extent of the work; (3) the skill required; (4) the term and duration of the relationship; (5) the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; (6) the control and supervision of the work to another; (7)the Er's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor' s workers; (8) the control of the premises; (9) the duty to supply the premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and (10) the mode, manner and terms of payment - Conclusion: None of the criteria exists- Case facts: (1) No contract, highly unlikely that a large company will enter into a mere oral contract concerning that many Ees; (2) Employment involved average of 7 years of continuous engagement; & (3) activities were necessary & desirable to SMC's business Rule: Job contracting is permissible when: (1) contractor has an independent business, free from control of principal re: means and methods, only of the result; (2) contractor has substantial capital, i.e., tools, equipment, machineries, work premises - Case facts: (1) contractors have no substantial capital; (2) SMC supplied the premises, tools, equipment & paraphernalia - Conclusion: Labor-only contracting prohibited by law On salaries, Rule: In independent contracting, fees are paid directly to manpower agency in LUMP SUM w/o indicating or implying that the basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker x number of workers - Case facts: (1) contractor were paid the exact salaries of the workers as accounted in payrolls, reports & statements by the Ees' group leaders, warehousemen & checkers; (2) Amount paid considers NO business expenses or capital outlay only a percentage of the Ees' wages. On kind of control, Rule: Control test, i.e. means and methods, shows Er-Ee relationship - Case fact: (1) inter-office memo re: Ee disciplinary actions by SMC - Conclusion: SMC is Er On Illegal dismissal, Rule: Allowable retrenchment, Closure or cessation of operations - Case fact: (1) Closure was temporary, i.e., repair of a furnace; (2) Operations continued after repairs using new Ees - Conclusion: Termination is illegal On ULP, SMC's refusal to bargain, Rule: LC provides the

Art.

Case Title / Issue

Facts Conciliation conferences, i.e., proposals & labor demands, request for recognition and collective bargaining SMC refused to bargain with union, ground: members not its Ees SMC fired petitioner-Ees, denied entrance to the plant Ees filed a case for illegal dismissal & unfair labor practice

Ruling/Ratio proper procedure for union recognition - Case fact: SMC had an existing CBA with IBM Union - Conclusion: Respondents cannot merely form a union and demand bargaining. Ruling: SMC to reinstate Ees with 3 years backwages, since impossible, pay Ees separation pay