O all accompanying documents of the notice for

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: it
 was
 taken
 only
 after
 notice
 and
 consultation
with
the
workers,
that
a
consensus
was
 reached
on
how
to
deal
with
deteriorating
economic
 conditions.
 Likewise,
 the
 forced
 leave
 was
 enforced
 neither
in
a
malicious,
harsh,
oppressive,
vindicative
 nor
 wanton
 manner,
 or
 out
 of
 malice
 or
 spite.
 The
 decision
 to
 resort
 to
 forced
 leaves
 was
 a
 management
prerogative.
 Issuance
of
rules
or
policy
 o San
Miguel
Brewery
Sales
Force
Union
v.
Ople
and
SMC
 SMC
introduced
a
marketing
scheme
(CDS)
known
 as
 Complementary
 distribution
 system
 where
 its
 Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 4. 5. beer
 products
 were
 offered
 for
 sale
 directly
 to
 wholesalers
through
SMC’s
sales
offices.
Union
filed
 for
 ULP
 claiming
 that
 the
 CDS
 was
 contrary
 to
 the
 existing
 marketing
 scheme
 where
 route
 salesmen
 sold
 their
 stocks
 of
 beer.
 They
 allege
 that
 the
 CDS
 violated
the
CBA
because
the
CDS
would
reduce
the
 take
home
pay
of
the
salesmen
 No
 ULP.
 The
 plan
 was
 to
 improve
 efficiency
 and
 economy
 and
 at
 the
 same
 time
 gain
 profit
 to
 the
 highest.
 Every
 business
 enterprise
 endeavors
 to
 increase
 its
 profits.
 In
 the
 process,
 it
 may
 adopt
 or
 devise
means
designed
towards
that
goal.
 • Taking
action
against
slowdown
 o Employees
have
the
right
to
strike,
but
they
have
no
right
to
 continue
 working
 on
 their
 own
 terms
 while
 rejecting
 the
 standards
 desired
 by
 their
 employer.
 Hence,
 an
 employer
 does
 not
 commit
 an
 ULP
 by
 discharging
 employees
 who
 engage
in
a
slowdown,
even
if
their
object
is
a
pay
increase
 which
is
lawful
 Determination
of
validity
 • Determining
the
validity
of
an
employer’s
act
involves
an
appraisal
of
 his
motives
 • It
 is
 for
 the
 NLRC,
 in
 the
 first
 instance,
 to
 weigh
 the
 employer’s
 expressed
 motive
 in
 determining
 the
 effect
 on
 the
 employees
 of
 management’s
otherwise
equivocal
act
 First
ULP:
interference
(Article
248[a])
 • [In
summarized
form,
the
9
ULP
acts
of
an
employer
are:
 o Interference
 o “Yellow
dog”
condition
 o Contracting
out
 o Company
unionism
 o Discrimination
for
or
against
union
membership
 o Discrimination
because
of
testimony
 o Violation
of
duty
to
bargain
 o Paid
negotiation
 o Violation
of
CBA]
 • Outright
 and
 unconcealed
 intimidation
 is
 the
 most
 obvious
 form
 of
 “interference”.
 But
 in
 the
 great
 preponderance
 of
 cases,
 the
 employer’s
efforts
are
much
more
covert
and
are
generally
disguised
 to
escape
detection
 • Interference
with
employee
organization
rights
was
found
where
the
 superintendent
 of
 the
 employer
 threatened
 the
 employees
 with
 cutting
 their
 pay,
 increasing
 rent,
 or
 closing
 the
 plant
 if
 they
 supported
 the
 union
 and
 where
 the
 employer
 encouraged
 the
 employees
to
sign
a
petition
repudiating
the
union
 • Dabuet,
et
al.
v.
Roche
Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.

 o Petitioners‐officers
 of
 Roche
 Products
 Labor
 Union,
 wrote
 the
 company
 expressing
 the
 grievances
 of
 the
 union
 and
 seeking
a
formal
conference
with
management
regarding
the
 previous
 dismissal
 of
 the
 union’s
 president
 and
 VP.
 At
 a
 57
 • • • meeting,
 the
 company’s
 GM,
 instead
 of
 discussing
 the
 problems
 affecting
 the
 labor
 union
 and
 management,
 allegedly
 berated
 the
 petitioners
 for
 writing
 that
 letter
 and
 called
 the
 letter
 and
 the
 person
 who
 prepared
 it
 “stupid”.
 Union
filed
case
for
grave
slander
 o Company
 had
 committed
 ULP
 in
 dismissing
 the
 petitioners
 without
 just
 and
 valid
 cause.
 Their
 dismissal,
 under
 the
 circumstances,
 amounted
 to
 interference
 with,
 and
 restraint
 or
 coercion
 of,
 the
 petitioners
 in
 the
 exercise
 of
 their
 right
 to
 engage
 in
 concerted
 activities
 for
 their
 mutual
 aid
 and
 protection.
 Interrogation
 o In
order
that
the
questioning
of
an
employee
concerning
his
 union
activities
would
not
be
deemed
coercive,
 The
 employer
 must
 communicate
 to
 the
 employee
 the
purpose
of
the
questioning,
 Assure
him
that
no
reprisal
would
take
place,
 And
obtain
his
participation
on
a
voluntary
basis.

 Questioning
must
also
occur
in
a
context
free
from
...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online