Liwayway filed an action for damages against the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: for
 union
 busting.
 They
 staged
the
strike,
in
the
course
of
which
the
union
 perpetrated
illegal
acts.
 Strike
 staged
 was
 in
 the
 nature
 of
 a
 union­ recognition­strike.
 A
 union­recognition­strike
 is
 calculated
to
compel
the
employer
to
recognize
one’s
 union
 and
 not
 the
 other
 contending
 group,
 as
 the
 employee’s
bargaining
rep
to
work
out
a
CBA
despite
 the
striking
union’s
doubtful
majority
status
to
merit
 voluntary
 recognition
 and
 lack
 of
 formal
 certification.

 At
the
time
AIUP
filed
a
petition
for
CE,
there
was
an
 existing
 union,
 CCEA,
 and
 CBA.
 Contract
 bar
 rule
 applies.
 May
a
minority
union
strike?
 o When
a
union,
after
winning
in
an
election,
is
certified
as
the
 exclusive
 bargaining
 rep,
 any
 other
 union
 who
 participated
 in
the
election
becomes
a
minority
union
 o A
 minority
 union
 cannot
 demand
 collective
 bargaining
 with
 the
 employer
 because
 such
 right
 belongs
 to
 the
 union
 that
 commands
the
majority
 o The
 defeated
 union
 cannot
 lawfully
 undertake
 a
 strike
 against
the
employer.
Neither
it
picket
to
compel
bargaining
 o No
labor
dispute
can
exist
between
a
minority
union
and
an
 employer
in
such
a
case
 o The
minority
union,
although
it
cannot
strike,
can
engage
in
 peaceful
 concerted
 activity
 short
 of
 strike
 and
 it
 can
 file
 a
 ULP
complaint
 Strike
held
to
compel
recognition
while
case
is
unresolved,
illegal
 Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 Luzon
Marine
Department
Union
v.
Roldan
 Union
 demanded
 recognition
 with
 right
 to
 collective
 bargaining.
 Union
 also
 filed
 a
 petition
 with
 the
 CIR,
 asking
 the
 company
 to
 comply
 with
 the
demands.
 Another
union,
the
UOEF,
intervened
 claiming
 that
 recognition
 would
 violate
 its
 agreement
 with
 the
 company
 that
 UOEF
 was
 the
 recognized
 bargaining
 representative.
 Pending
 resolution
of
the
case,
members
of
petitioner
went
 on
 strike
 to
 show
 that
 they
 had
 more
 than
 30
 members.
 It
was
of
no
avail
to
the
petitioner
to
strike
to
show
 to
 the
 company
 and
 intervenor
 that
 they
 had
 more
 than
30
members
because
the
question
of
whether
or
 not
 the
 petitioner
 had
 more
 than
 30
 members
 employed
 in
 the
 service
 of
 the
 company
 was
 at
 the
 time
 sub
 judice,
 both
 parties
 having
 submitted
 evidence
before
the
court.
 Unlawful
purpose:
trivial,
u...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online