Employersparticipationislimitedto being notified or

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: employer
 hostility
 to
 union
 organization
 and
 must
 not
itself
be
coercive
in
nature
 ULP
even
before
union
is
registered
 o Management
contended
that
it
could
not
commit
ULP
while
 there
was
no
union
yet.
This
contention,
according
to
the
SC,
 is
without
merit.
The
Labor
Code
considers
it
an
unfair
labor
 practice
 for
 an
 employer
 to
 initiate,
 dominate,
 assist
 or
 otherwise
 interfere
 with
 the
 formation
 or
 administration
 of
 any
 labor
 organization,
 including
 the
 giving
 of
 financial
 or
 other
 support
 to
 it.
 In
 short,
 an
 employer
 who
 interfered
 with
 the
 right
 to
 self‐organization
 before
 the
 union
 is
 registered
can
be
held
guilty
of
ULP
 Prohibiting
organizing
activities
 o The
 following
 are
 examples
 of
 unlawful
 acts
 to
 discourage
 membership
in
a
labor
organization
 Dismissal
 of
 union
 members
 upon
 their
 refusal
 to
 give
 up
 their
 membership,
 under
 the
 pretext
 of
 retrenchment
due
to
reduced
dollar
allocations
 Refusal
 over
 a
 period
 of
 years
 to
 give
 salary
 adjustments
 according
 to
 the
 improved
 salary
 scales
in
the
CBA
 Dismissal
 of
 an
 old
 employee
 allegedly
 for
 inefficiency,
 on
 account
 of
 her
 having
 joined
 a
 union
and
engaging
in
union
activities
 o CLLG
EG
Gochango
Workers
Unionv.
NLRC
 The
 respondent
 company
 deserves
 our
 strongest
 condemnation
 for
 ignoring
 the
 petitioners’
 request
 for
 permission
 for
 some
 time
 out
 to
 attend
 to
 the
 hearing
of
their
petition
before
the
med­arbiter.
It
is
 not
 only
 an
 act
 of
 arrogance,
 but
 a
 brazen
 interference
as
well,
with
the
employees’
right
to
self­ Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 • • • • • organization,
 contrary
 to
 the
 prohibition
 of
 the
 Labor
Code
against
ULP.
 Violence
or
intimidation
 o Violations
 have
 been
 found
 where
 the
 employer
 threatened
 employees
favoring
the
union
with
force
or
violence
 Espionage
and
surveillance
 o Employees
 come
 under
 threat
 of
 economic
 coercion
 or
 retaliation
 Economic
inducements
 o It
is
a
well‐settled
rule
that
while
a
representation
election
is
 pending,
the
conferral
of
employee
benefits
for
 the
purpose
 of
inducing
the
employees
to
vote
against
a
union
is
unlawful
 Employer’s
expression
of
opinion;
totality
of
conduct
doctrine
 o Doctrine
 holds
 that
 the
 culpability
 of
 employer’s
 remarks
 was
 to
 be
 evaluated
 not
 only
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 their
 implications,
 but
 against
 the
 background
 of
 and
 in
 conjunction
with
collateral
circumstances
 o The
 Insular
 Life
 Assurance
 Co.,
 Ltd.,
 Employees
 Association
 v.
 Insular
Life
Assurance
Co.
 Company
 president
 sent
 individual
 letters
 to
 striking
 employees
 urging
 them
 to
 abandon
 their
 strike
 with
 a
 promise
 of
 free
 coffee,
 and
 movies,
 and
 paid
 overtime.
 He
 said
 that
 if
 they
 failed
 to
 return
 to
 their
 jobs,
 they
 might
 be
 replaced.
 Company‐hired
 men,
 in
 addition,
 broke
 into
 the
 picket
 line,
 resulting
 in
 violence.
 When
 the
 strike
 was
 over,
 company
 refused
 to
 readmit
 unionists
 facing
criminal
charges
 Individual
soliciting
urging
employees
to
cease
union
 activity
 or
 cease
 striking
 constitutes
 ULP.
 Company
 was
 also
 guilty
 of
 strike­breaking
 and/or
 union
 busting
 (by
 attempting
 to
 bribe
 with
 coffee,
 etc)
 is
 ULP.

 The
 letters
 of
 the
 company
 president
 to
 the
 individual
 strikers
 should
 not
 be
 considered
 by
 themselves
 alone
 but
 should
 be
 read
 in
 the
 light
 of
 the
 preceding
 and
 subsequent
 circumstances.
 The
 letter
 should
 be
 interpreted
 according
 to
 the
 “totality
 of
 conduct
 doctrine,”
 whereby
 the
 culpability
 of
 an
 employer’s
 remarks
 has
 to
 be
 evaluated
 not
 only
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 their
 implicit
 implications,
 but
 in
 conjunction
 with
 collateral
 circumstances.
 Mass
layoff
amounting
to
ULP
 o Madrigal
&
Company,
Inc.
v.
Zamora
 Madrigal
 Central
...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online