Ulp Cases

Bankard, Inc vs NLRC et al, GR No.
171664, 06 March 2013 (contracting/redundancy)

 The issue started when Bankard implemented Manpower Rationalization Program (M
RP), to further enhance its efficiency and be more competitive in the credit card industry,
invitating to the employees to tender their voluntary resignation, with entitlement to sepa
ration pay. Thereafter, majority of one division availed of the MRP. Thus, Bankard contr
acted an independent agency to handle its call center needs.
 The Union filed before the NCMB its first Notice of Strike (NOS) alleging commission o
f unfair labor practices by petitioner Bankard, Inc. . Labor Secretary of the DOLE issued
the order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC upon the Bankard’s request. The Unio
n filed its second NOS the day after it declared deadlock, alleging bargaining in bad faith
on the part of Bankard. Bankard then again asked the Office of the Secretary of Labor to
assume jurisdiction, which was granted and certified the labor dispute to the NLRC.
Whether job contractualization or outsourcing or contracting-out is an unfair labor pra
ctice considering there was no bad faith.
 RULING: No. Aside from the bare allegations of the Union, nothing in the records stron
gly proves that Bankard intended its program, the MRP, as a tool to drastically and delib
erately reduce union membership. Contrary to the findings and conclusions of both the N
LRC and the CA, there was no proof that the program was meant to encourage the emplo
yees to disassociate themselves from the Union or to restrain them from joining any unio
n or organization. There was no showing that it was intentionally implemented to stunt th
e growth of the Union or that Bankard discriminated, or in any way singled out the union
members who had availed of the retirement package under the MRP. True, the program
might have affected the number of union membership because of the employees’ volunta
ry resignation and availment of the package, but it does not necessarily follow that Banka
rd indeed purposely sought such result.
 It must be recalled that the MRP was implemented as a valid cost-cutting measure, well
within the ambit of the so-called management prerogatives.
 Bankard contracted an independent agency to meet business exigencies. In the absence o
f any showing that Bankard was motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it was a
imed at interfering with its employees’ right to self-organize, it cannot be said to have co
mmitted an act of unfair labor practice. The Court has ruled that the prohibited acts consi
dered as ULP relate to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a
CBA. It refers to “acts that violate the workers’ right to organize.” Without that element,
the acts, even if unfair, are not ULP. Thus, an employer may only be held liable for unfai
r labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his
employees to self-organize.
 Law on unfair labor practices is not intended to deprive employers of their fundamental r
ight to prescribe and enforce such rules as they honestly believe to be necessary to the pr
oper, productive and profitable operation of their business. Contracting out of services is
an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent any proof that man
agement acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the ex
ercise of judgment by an employer.
Arabit et al vs Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., GR No. 181719, 21 April 2014 (redundancy)
DOCTRINE: Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise but the employer must
clearly show that it used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be
declared redundant.
 Petitioners were former regular employees of respondent (Jardine). The petitioners were
also officers and members of MB Finance Employees Association-FFW Chapter (the
Union), a legitimate labor union and the sole exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees of Jardine.
 On the claim of financial losses, Jardine decided to reorganize and implement a
redundancy program among its employees. The petitioners were among those affected by
the redundancy program.
 Jardine thereafter hired contractual employees to undertake the functions these
employees used to perform. T
 he petitioners and the Union filed a complaint against Jardine with the NLRC for illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice.
ISSUE: Whether or not the retrenchment was valid. NO
 Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably
demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant where it
is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number
of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a
particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the
enterprise. Primarily, employers resort to redundancy when the functions of an employee
have already become superfluous or in excess of what the business requires. Thus, even
if a business is doing well, an employer can still validly dismiss an employee from the
service due to redundancy if that employees position has already become in excess of
what the employers enterprise requires.
 From this perspective, it is illogical for Jardine to terminate the petitioners employment
and replace them with contractual employees. The replacement effectively belies
Jardines claim that the petitioners positions were abolished due to superfluity.
Redundancy could have been justified if the functions of the petitioners were transferred
to other existing employees of the company.
 To dismiss the petitioners and hire new contractual employees as replacements
necessarily give rise to the sound conclusion that the petitioners services have not really
become in excess of what Jardines business requires.
 To replace the petitioners who were all regular employees with contractual ones would
amount to a violation of their right to security of tenure. The employer must clearly show
that it used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
redundant. Jardine was never able to explain in any of its pleadings why the petitioners
positions were redundant. It never even attempted to discuss the attendant facts and
circumstances that led to the conclusion that the petitioners positions had become
superfluous and unnecessary to Jardines business requirements
San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union (Sacoru) vs Coca Cola Bottlers Phils.,
Inc. (CCBPI), GR No. 200499, 04 October 2017 (redundancy; status quo during a strike)
 On May 29, 2009, the private respondent company, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc.
("CCBPI") issued notices of termination to twenty seven (27) rank-and-file, regular
employees and members of the San Fernando Rank-and-File Union ("SACORU'),
collectively referred to as "union members", on the ground of redundancy due to the
ceding out of two selling and distribution systems, the Conventional Route System
("CRS') and Mini Bodega System ("MB") to the Market Execution Partners ("MEPS''),
better known as "Dealership System". The termination of employment was made
effective on June 30, 2009, but the union members were no longer required to report for
work as they were put on leave of absence with pay until the effectivity date of their
termination. The union members were also granted individual separation packages,
which twenty-two (22) of them accepted, but under protest.
 To SACORU, the new, reorganized selling and distribution systems adopted and
implemented by CCBPI would result in the diminution of the union membership
amounting to union busting and to a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) provision against contracting out of services or outsourcing of regular positions;
hence, they filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) on June 3, 2009 on the ground of unfair labor practice, among others. On June
11, 2009, SACORU conducted a strike vote where a majority decided on conducting a
strike.
 On June 23, 2009, the then Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), Marianito D. Roque, assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute by certifying
for compulsory arbitration the issues raised in the notice of strike.
 Meanwhile, pending hearing of the certified case, SACORU filed a motion for execution
of the dispositive portion of the certification order praying that the dismissal of the union
members not be pushed through because it would violate the order of the DOLE
Secretary not to commit any act that would exacerbate the situation.
Pepsi-Cola Product Phils, Inc vs Molon, GR No. 175002, 18 February 2013

(retrenchment)
 In 1999, Pepsi adopted a company-wide retrenchment program denominated as
Corporate Rightsizing Program. On July 13, 1999, Pepsi notified the DOLE of the initial
batch of forty-seven (47) workers to be retrenched. Among these employees were six (6)
elected officers and twenty-nine (29) active members of the LEPCEU-ALU, including
herein respondents.
 On July 19, 1999, LEPCEU-ALU filed a Notice of Strike before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board. (NCMB) due to Pepsi’s alleged acts of union
busting/ULP.
 It claimed that Pepsi’s adoption of the retrenchment program was designed solely to bust
their union so that come freedom period, Pepsi’s company union, the Leyte Pepsi-Cola
 Employees Union-Union de Obreros de Filipinas - would garner the majority vote to
retain its exclusive bargaining status.
Issues:
Whether Pepsi committed ULP in the form of union busting.
Ruling:
 Under Article 276(c) of the Labor Code, there is union busting when the existence of the
union is threatened by the employer’s act of dismissing the former’s officers who have
been duly-elected in accordance with its constitution and by-laws. On the other hand, the
term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code
which, at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
organization, with the sole exception of Article 257(f) (previously Article 248[f]). Unfair
labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers' right to organize. The prohibited acts
are related to the workers' right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA.
Without that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices. The
only exception is Article 257(f).
Mendoza vs MWEU, GR No. 201595, 25 January 2016 (Union’s

failure to act on a valid appeal)
o
De La Salle University vs De La Salle Employees Association,
GR 169254, 23 August 2012 (withholding of union dues
pending an intra-union dispute)
o
Ren Transport Corp vs NLRC et, GR No. 188020, 20 July 2016
(violation of the duty to bargain collectively; non-remittance
of union dues; moral damages for the union)
o
Bayer Phils vs Bayer Phils, Inc., GR No. 162943, 06 December
2010 (non-remittance)
o
Zambrano et al vs P
hilippine Carpet Manufacturing Corp et
al, GR 224099, 21 June 2017 (
mass dismissal of all union
members; piercing the veil of corporate fiction)

Ulp Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ulp Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ulp Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bankard, Inc vs NLRC et al, GR No.

171664, 06 March 2013 (contracting/redundancy)

Pepsi-Cola Product Phils, Inc vs Molon, GR No. 175002, 18 February 2013

Mendoza vs MWEU, GR No. 201595, 25 January 2016 (Union’s

You might also like