T & H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v.

Zaldivar, et al

FACTS
 The T&H and Gin Queen union and the respondents Zaldivar, Gonzales, etc (all officers/members) filed
a complaint for ULP by way of union bustng, and illegal lockout with moral and exemplary damages and
atty’s fees before the LA. They treated T&H and GQ as a single entity and sole employer.
 They narrate that they had their first formal meeting on Nov. 23, 2000 to discuss the formation of a
union and the next day, 17 employees were barred from entering the factory and were transferred to
T&H Subic Warehouse, purportedly because of its expansion. The 17 were repeatedly ordered to go on
forced leave due to unavailability of work.
 Dec 18, 2003: DOLE issues a certificate of Registration for the THS-GQ Union (note that this came
after the issue of the 17)
 Respondents contend that the affected employees were not given regular work despite subcontractors
being continuously hired for their functions so they went to the NCMB.
o Parties agreed to give priority to the affected employees re: work assignments – never complied
with; company instead hired contractuals.
 A petition for CE was then filed, issued, and a CE was scheduled on October 11, 2004.
 Meanwhile, T&H director Huang informed the employees that the company’s lease was up in
Castillejos, Zambales and that it was relocating to Cabangan, Zambales (respondents visited the site
and saw talahiban/grasslands only).
o Upon relocation, they were made to work as grasscutters under the Brgy. Capt so they stopped
reporting to work and were made to explain why they should not be terminated for
insubordination while others who also did not report to work were suspended.
 There was also a company field trip to Iba where union members were not included and during the
evening of the trip, a sales officer campaigned against the union in the CE, to be held the next day (Oct
11).
o Oct 11 – employees were escorted from the field trip -> polling center.
o Due to heavy pressure, “no union” votes prevailed.
 THS-GQU filed their protest. They held that the following week after the CE, union officers/members
were retrenched, reassigned, and had their workweek reduced to 3 days/month awow.
o Defense of GQ: it is a separate corporate person distinct from T&H and that due to a decrease
in orders (I Googled, si T&H metal, wooden, and acrylic displays pero later sa AOI we will see
na same business sila ni GQ), they to cost-cut and assign work on a rotational basis. However,
employees believe that it was motivated by spite because of the ULP complaint.
o GQ also explained their transfer to Cabangan: because of the expired lease and since the
Cabangan site was still bare, they also had to be in rotation kasi wala pa naman work na
gagawin, construction pa lang daw ng factory.
 LA: dismissed; 17 affected workers were not even part of the complaint so bakit ililink dun yung
nangyayari.
o While a union may represent its members in cases, the members must show intention to file by
signing.
o Also, transfer of the 17 was effected long before the union was organized.
o Gave merit to the expired lease; transfer was justified to cut costs. Finally, there was proof that
there were less orders
 NLRC: reversed; (moral: 50k, exemplary: 35k for each complainant + aty’s fees). ULP finding was
based on the fieldtrip and the campaign against the union and the escorting to the polls + discrimination
of union members assigned to cut grass.
o Also found that AOI provides that T&H and GQ are in the same line of business and that the
lessor for the old site was the wife of a GQ officer Stennis Huang. GQ was renamed to MDL but
same business and premises and Stennis’ interest in GQ was transferred to a 3rd party =
badges of fraud justifying piercing the veil.
o MR denied.
o CA Rule 65 sustained NLRC. Errors of judgment are not under R65, no GADLEJ; MR denied.

ISSUES + RULING
Are T&H and GQ one and the same? If so, is GQ also liable for ULP? (uhm…di ito sinagot)
  Stennis claims that he cannot be made liable for T&H’s alleged ULP because there is no ee-er
relationship between him and the respondents. He also stressed GQ’s decision to rotate workers as a
management prerogative and explained that the failure to present concrete proof of its decreasing
orders was due to the impossibility of proving a negative assertion.

Is there ULP? YES, violations are (a), (b), and (c) of A257, LC.
 In essence, ULP = relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers’ right to organize. As
specified in Articles 248 [now Article 257] and 249 [now Article 258] of the Labor Code, the prohibited
acts must necessarily relate to the workers’ right to self-organization
 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd: the
test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, that is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be
said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary that there
be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the
employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an
adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
o When questioned acts are taken together: sponsored fieldtrip, active campaign, escorting to
polls, hiring of subcontractors, assignment as grass cutters, and rotational work =
INTERFERENCE
o Actions were prior and immediately before the CE and since Er is simply a bystander in the CE,
they had no business campaigning. Not content with the “no union” vote win, they launched a
vindictive campaign against union members through their other acts.
o Bare denial = no merit and cannot prevail over detailed narration of respondents; quantum of
proof is substantial evidence (amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably
opine otherwise)
 Atty’s fees deleted.