48 the international organization should as a

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: oluntary
 modes
 in
 settling
 disputes
 since
 the
 maintenance
 of
 industrial
peace
is
a
joint
responsibility
of
workers
and
employers
 • Assistance
 of
 the
 BLR
 or
 the
 regional
 office
 of
 the
 DOLE
 in
 the
 execution
 of
 a
 compromise
 settlement
 is
 generally
 a
 basic
 requirement;
without
it,
there
can
be
no
valid
compromise
settlement
 • Hence,
 any
 compromise
 settlement,
 even
 on
 labor
 standard
 matters,
 agreed
 to
 by
 the
 parties
 with
 the
 assistance
 of
 the
 BLR
 or
 regional
 office
of
the
DOLE
is
allowed.
Resulting
agreement
is
legally
binding!
 • NLRC
or
any
court
shall
not
assume
jurisdiction
over
issues
involved
 therein,
except
–
 o In
 case
 of
 noncompliance
 with
 the
 compromise
 agreement
 or
 o If
 there
 is
 prima
 facie
 evidence
 that
 the
 settlement
 was
 obtained
through
fraud,
misrepresentation
or
coercion
 • Note
that
not
all
quitclaims
are
per
se
invalid,
or
against
public
policy,
 except
–
 o Where
there
is
clear
proof
that
the
waiver
was
wangled
from
 an
unsuspecting
or
gullible
person
 o Where
 the
 terms
 of
 the
 settlement
 are
 unconscionable
 on
 their
faces
 Formal
requirements
of
compromise
agreement
 • Union
of
Filipino
Workers
v.
NLRC
 o Compromise
agreements
involving
labor
standards
cases
must
 –
 Be
reduced
to
writing
 Signed
in
the
presence
of
the
Regional
Director
or
his
 duly
authorized
representative
 o Acknowledgement
receipt
and
undertaking
≠
signed
 o SPA
required
before
an
agent
can
be
authorized
to
enter
into
 a
compromise
 Valid
compromise
and
quitclaim
 • Veloso
and
Liguaton
v.
DOLE,
Noah’s
Ark
Sugar
Carriers
 o Complainants
 won
 case
 against
 employer
 for
 ULP,
 among
 others.
 Employer
 filed
 a
 MR
 and
 recomputation
 of
 the
 amount
awarded.
 32
 While
 case
 was
 pending,
 Veloso,
 through
 his
 wife,
 signed
 a
 Quitclaim
and
Release
in
consideration
of
P25,000.
Liguaton
 signed
on
for
P20,000
 o Releases
 were
 impugned
 by
 petitioners,
 claiming
 that
 they
 had
to
sign
because
of
extreme
necessity
 o Held:
Releases
were
VALID
 o The
 law
 looks
 with
 disfavor
 upon
 quitclaims
 and
 releases
 by
 employees
who
are
inveigled
or
pressured
into
signing
them
by
 unscrupulous
 employers
 seeking
 to
 evade
 their
 legal
 responsibilities.
 On
 the
 other
 hand,
 there
 are
 legitimate
 waivers
 that
 represent
 a
 voluntary
 settlement
 of
 laborer's
 claims
 that
 should
 be
 respected
 by
 the
 courts
 as
 the
 law
 between
the
parties.
 o "Dire
necessity"
is
not
an
acceptable
ground
for
annulling
the
 releases,
 especially
 since
 it
 has
 not
 been
 shown
 that
 the
 employees
 had
 been
 forced
 to
 execute
 them.
 It
 has
 not
 even
 been
 proven
 that
 the
 considerations
 for
 the
 quitclaims
 were
 unconscionably
low
and
that
the
petitioners
had
been
tricked
 into
 accepting
 them.
 In
 any
 event,
 no
 deception
 has
 been
 established
 on
 the
 part
 of
 the
 Private
 respondent
 that
 would
 justify
the
annulment
of
the
Petitioners'
quitclaims.
 Compromise
should
be
duly
authorized
 • Jag
&
Haggar
Jeans
and
Sportswear
Corp.
v.
NLRC
 o Issue:
 W/N
 the
 compromise
 agreement
 entered
 into
 by
 company
 and
 Union
 (which
 constitute
 the
 majority)
 is
 binding
upon
the
other
complainants
(minority)?
 o Minority
 claims
 that
 for
 the
 agreement
 to
 be
 binding
 upon
 them,
there
must
be
a
SPA
or
their
express
consent
 o The
 waiver
 of
 reinstatement,
 like
 waivers
 of
 money
 claims,
 must
be
regarded
as
a
personal
right
which
must
be
exercised
 personally
by
the
workers
themselves.
"For
a
waiver
thereof
to
 be
legally
effective,
the
individual
consent
or
ratification
of
the
 workers
 or
 employees
 involved
 must
 be
 shown.
 Neither
 the
 officers
 nor
 the
 majority
 of
 the
 union
 had
 any
 authority
 to
 waive
the
accrued
rights
pertaining
to
the
dissenting
minority
 members.
The
members
of
the
union
need
the
protective
shield
 of
 this
 doctrine
 not
 only
vis­a­vis
their
 employer
 but
 a...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online