V bci employees and workers union cba effective for 4

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: 
 CBA
 contained
 a
 no
 strike/lockout
 clause
 and
 providing
for
grievance
machinery
 Union
 president
 invited
 the
 company
 to
 discuss
 grievances.
Hours
after
the
submission
of
the
union
 invitation,
 the
 president
 received
 a
 letter
 from
 management,
 dismissing
 him
 because
 of
 absenteeism.
 Without
 notice,
 union
 declared
 a
 strike
in
protest
against
the
dismissal.
 Strike
 was
 legal.
 While
 union
 activity
 is
 no
 bar
 to
 discharge,
 the
 existence
 of
 a
 lawful
 cause
 for
 discharge
is
no
defense
if
the
employee
was
actually
 punished
for
union
activity.
When
the
union
declared
 a
strike
in
the
belief
that
the
dismissal
of
Baylon
was
 due
to
his
union
activities,
said
strike
was
not
illegal.
 The
 strike
 staged
 can’t
 be
 considered
 a
 violation
 of
 the
no­strike
clause
of
the
CBA
because
it
was
due
to
 • Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 • • • the
 ULP
 of
 the
 employer.
 Besides,
 a
 no­strike
 clause
 in
a
CBA
is
applicable
only
to
economic
strikes
 Even
“good
faith
strike”
requires
rational
basis
 o Tiu
and
Hayuhay
v.
NLRC
 Management
 issued
 guidelines
 to
 minimize
 overtime
 expenses.
 Union
 was
 asked
 to
 comment.
 It
 did
 not.
 Guidelines
 were
 put
 into
 effect.
 Union
 filed
a
notice
of
strike,
alleging
violation
of
the
CBA.
 It
 also
 charged
 management
 with
 interference,
 coercion
and
discrimination
against
the
union.
The
 union
gave
no
particulars,
and
then
went
on
strike.
 The
 union
 has
 the
 burden
 of
 proof
 to
 present
 substantial
 evidence
to
support
 these
allegations.
In
 the
case
at
bar,
the
evidence
did
not
establish
even
at
 least
 a
 rational
 basis
 why
 the
 union
 would
 wield
 a
 strike
based
on
alleged
ULP
it
did
not
even
bother
to
 substantiate
 during
 the
 conciliation
 proceedings.
 It
 is
 not
 enough
 that
 the
 union
 believed
 that
 the
 employer
 committed
 acts
 of
 ULP
 when
 the
 circumstances
 clearly
 negate
 even
 a
 prima
 facie
 showing
to
warrant
such
belief.
 Do
 the
 procedural
 requirements
 apply
 even
 to
 a
 ULP
 strike
 in
 good
faith?
 o National
Federation
of
Labor
v.
NLRC
 No
notice
of
strike
was
filed.
No
SV
and
SVR.

 People’s
 Industrial
 did
 not
 rule
 that
 the
 procedural
 steps
 can
 be
 dispensed
 with
 even
 if
 the
 union
 believed
 in
 good
 faith
 that...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online