Thustheycannotbelongtoa singlebargainingunit in

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: 
 upon
 anti‐union
 discrimination
 and
 interference
 No
ULP:
illustrative
instances
of
valid
exercise
of
management
rights
 • The
 law
 on
 ULP
 is
 not
 intended
 to
 deprive
 the
 employer
 of
 his fundamental
right
to
prescribe
and
enforce
such
rules
as
he
honestly
 believes
 to
 be
 necessary
 to
 the
 proper,
 productive
 and
 profitable
 operation
of
his
business
 • Where,
however,
an
employer
does
violate
the
Act
and
is
found
guilty
 of
 the
 commission
 of
 an
 “ULP”,
 it
 is
 no
 excuse
 that
 his
 conduct
 was
 unintentional
and
innocent
 • Personnel
movements
 o As
 a
 rule,
 it
 is
 the
 prerogative
 of
 the
 company
 to
 promote,
 transfer
 or
 even
 demote
 its
 employees
 to
 other
 positions
 when
 the
 interests
 of
 the
 company
 reasonably
 demand
 it.
 Unless
 there
 are
 instances
 which
 directly
 point
 to
 interference
 by
 the
 company
 with
 the
 employee’s
 rights
 to
 S.O.,
 the
 transfer
 of
 an
 employee
 should
 be
 considered
 as
 within
the
bounds
allowed
by
law
 • Acceptance
of
mass
resignation
 o Acceptance
of
a
voluntary
resignation
is
not
ULP
 o A
 protest
 retirement/resignation
 is
 not
 a
 concerted
 activity
 which
is
protected
by
law
 o Neither
 employers
 nor
 employees
 should
 be
 allowed
 to
 make
 of
 judicial
 authority
 a
 now‐you’ve‐got‐it‐now‐you‐ don’t
(lol
)
affair.
 • Grant
of
profit­sharing
benefits
to
non­union
members
 o Management
has
the
prerogative
to
regulate,
according
to
its
 discretion
 and
 judgment,
 all
 aspects
 of
 employment.
 Such
 management
 prerogative
 may
 be
 availed
 of
 without
 fear
 of
 any
 liability
 so
 long
 as
 it
 is
 exercised
 in
 good
 faith
 for
 the
 advancement
 of
 the
 employers’
 interest
 and
 not
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 defeating
 or
 circumventing
 the
 rights
 of
 employees
 under
 special
 laws
 or
 valid
 agreement
 and
 are
 not
exercised
in
a
malicious,
harsh
manner
 o Wise
and
Co,
Inc.
v.
Wise
and
Co.,
Inc.
Employees
Union
 When
the
management
introduced
a
profit‐sharing
 scheme
 for
 its
 managers
 and
 supervisors,
 Union
 wrote
management
to
ask
that
the
union
members
 be
 allowed
 to
 participate.
 Management
 denied
 56
 • • because
that
wasn’t
in
the
CBA.
Later,
management
 distributed
 profit‐sharing
 benefit
 not
 only
 to
 managers
and
supervisors
but
also
to
all
rank‐and‐ file
 employees
 not
 covered
 by
 the
 CBA
 because
 they
were
excluded
from
their
agreed
definition
of
 bargaining
unit
 Whether
 the
 grant
 by
 management
 of
 profit‐ sharing
 benefits
 to
 its
 employees
 who
 are
 non‐ union
members
is
discriminatory
against
the
union
 members?
 Is
 the
 act
 discriminatory
 amounting
 to
 ULP?
No.
 There
 can
 be
 no
 discrimination
 committed
 by
 the
 employer
 as
 the
 situation
 of
 the
 union
 employees
 is
 different
 from
 that
 of
 the
 nonunion
 employees.
 Discrimination
 per
 se
 is
 not
 unlawful.
 There
 can
 be
 no
 discrimination
 where
 the
 employees
 concerned
 are
not
similarly
situated.
 The
 grant
 of
 the
 employer
 of
 profit­sharing
 benefits
 to
 the
 employees
 outside
 the
 bargaining
 unit
 falls
 under
 the
 ambit
 of
 its
 managerial
 prerogative.
 It’s
 provided
in
the
CBA
even.
 However,
 the
 Court
 serves
 notice
 that
 it
 will
 not
 hesitate
to
strike
down
any
act
of
the
employer
that
 tends
to
be
discriminatoryagainst
union
members
 Forced
vacation
leave
 o Where
 the
 vacation
 leave
 without
 pay,
 which
 the
 employer
 requires
employees
to
take
in
view
of
the
economic
 crisis,
is
 neither
 malicious,
 oppressive
 or
 vindictive,
 ULP
 is
 not
 committed
 o Philippine
Graphic
Arts,
Inc.
v.
NLRC
 Petitioner
 corporation
 was
 forced
 by
 economic
 circumstances
 to
 require
 its
 workers
 to
 go
 on
 mandatory
 vacation
 leave
 in
 batches.
 The
 workers
 were
paid
while
on
leave
but
the
pay
was
charged
 against
 their
 respective
 earned
 leaves.
 Employees
 filed
complaint
for
ULP
 No
 ULP.
 There
 is
 basis
 for
 the
 petitioner’s
 contentions
that
the
reduction
of
work
schedule
was
 temporary,
 that
...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online