Effect of withdrawal of signatures depends on

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: ely
 blunt
 the
 effectiveness
 of
 an
 anticipated
 strike
 by
 stockpiling
 inventories,
 readjusting
 Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 8. contract
 schedules
 or
 transferring
 work
 from
 one
 plant
 to
 another,
 even
 though
 he
 thereby
 makes
 himself
 virtually
 strikeproof
 o Sameness
of
business
is
not
reason
enough
to
show
runaway
 shop
to
pierce
the
veil
of
separate
corporate
entity
 o Complex
Electronics
Employees
Association
v.
NLRC
 Complex
 Electronics
 Corporation
 was
 subcontractor
of
electronic
products.
Rank‐and‐file
 workers
 make
 up
 the
 union‐petitioner.
 Complex
 had
 to
 close
 down
 the
 operations
 of
 the
 Lite‐On
 Line.
 Company
 promised
 that
 it
 would
 follow
 the
 law
 by
 giving
 one
 month
 notice
 and
 retrenchment
 pay
 of
 half‐month
 pay
 for
 every
 year
 of
 service.
 Union
 demanded
 retrenchment
 pay
 of
 1
 month
 salary
 for
 every
 year
 of
 service.
 Complex
 refused.
 Union
 conducted
 a
 strike.
 In
 the
 evening,
 the
 machinery,
 equipment
 and
 materials
 used
 for
 production
 were
 pulled
 out
 from
 the
 company
 premises
and
transferred
to
the
premises
of
Ionics
 Circuit,
 Inc.
 The
 next
 day,
 Complex
 closed
 operations.
 Union
 claimed
 that
 pull‐out
 of
 the
 machinery,
equipment,
materials,
which
resulted
to
 the
 sudden
 closure
 of
 the
 company
 =
 ULP.
 Union
 claims
 that
 Complex
 and
 Ionics
 have
 the
 same
 president
 and
 Board
 of
 Directors.
 It
 claims
 that
 business
has
not
ceased
at
Complex
but
was
merely
 transferred
to
Ionics.
 No
 runaway
 shop
 in
 this
 case.
 A
 runaway
 shop
 is
 one
 wherein
 the
 employer
 moves
 its
 business
 to
 another
location
or
it
temporarily
closes
its
business
 for
 anti­union
 purposes.
 A
 runaway
 shop
 in
 this
 sense,
is
a
relocation
motivated
by
anti­union
animus
 rather
 than
 for
 business
 reasons.
 Here,
 Ionics
 was
 not
merely
set
up
for
the
purpose
of
transferring
the
 business
 of
 Complex.
 At
 the
 time
 the
 labor
 dispute
 arose,
Ionics
was
already
in
business.
The
union
filed
 to
 show
 that
 the
 primary
 reason
 for
 the
 closure
 of
 the
 establishment
 was
 due
 to
 the
 union
 activities
 of
 the
 employees.
 The
 mere
 fact
 that
 one
 or
 more
 corporations
are
owned
or
controlled
by
the
same
or
 single
 stockholder
 is
 not
 sufficient
 ground
 for
 disregarding
 separate
 corporate
 personalities.
 The
 closure
 was
 not
 motivated
 by
 the
 union
 activities
 of
 the
employees,
but
rather
by
necessity
since
it
can
no
 longer
 engage
 in
 production
 without
 the
 much
 needed
materials,
equipment,
machinery.
 Fourth
ULP:
company­domination
of
union
(Article
248[d])
 • Domination
of
a
labor
union
usually
manifests
in
the
following
forms
–
 o Initiation
of
the
company
union
idea
 60
 Outright
 formation
 by
 the
 employer
 or
 his
 representatives
 Employee
 formation
 an
 outright
 demand
 or
 influence
by
employer
 Managerially
motivated
formation
by
employees
 o Financial
support
to
the
union
 o Employer
encouragement
and
assistance
 o Supervisory
assistance
 • Progressive
Development
Corp
v.
CIR
 o Araneta
 Coliseum
 Employees
 Association
 filed
 a
 ULP
 case
 against
Progressive
Development
Corporation
(PDC)
and
the
 Progressive
 Employees
 Union
 (PEU).
 Complainants
 allege
 that
 they
 were
 dismissed
 because
 they
 refused
 to
 resign
 from
the
ACEA
and
to
affiliate
with
the
PEU
which
was
being
 aided
and
abetted
by
PDC.
 o Dismissal
 because
 of
 union
 activities
 and
 not
 because
 of
 the
 company’s
 alleged
 losses
 was
 adequately
 proven.
 The
 employer’s
 act
 constituted
 ULP.
 Apparently,
 PEU
 never
 collected
dues
from
its
members
and
all
members
were
made
 regular
employees
and
were
retained
in
the
construction
unit
 of
PDC.
PE
was
organized
to
camouflage
the
PDC’s
dislike
for
 the
ACEA
and
to
stave
of
the
latter’s
recognition.
 Fifth
ULP:
discrimination
(Article
248[e])
 • What
 the
 law
 prohibits
 is
 discrimination
 to
 encourage
 or
 discourage
...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online