employee employer12345Case Parties and Work or business of the Company Work or task of the Complainant Is there an employee-employer Decision of the Supreme Court Case No relationship

1Petitioner Insular Life agent , solicit within the PhilippinesNo employer-employee Supreme court ruled infavor of application for insurance policies & relationshipInsular Life. Complaint of Basiao annunuties in accordance with rules was dismissed. Basioa was not and regulations of the company Reason: an employee of the petitioner but Not every form of controlas a commission agent , an independent contractor for unpaid Respondent commission shoul;d have been Melecio T. Basiao litigated in an ordinary civil actionCase No. Rules and regualtions merely serve VI-0010-83serves as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result. It does not dictate the means or method to be employed in

2Petitioner Insular Life agent , solicit within the PhilippinesNo employer-employee application for insurance policies & relationshipannunuties in accordance with rules and regulations of the company oppointed as acting Unit manager

Respondent Pantaleon Delos Reyes

3Petitioner There is an employer-employee Supreme Court infavor of Castaneda. RISC relationship - the mere fact that the housekeeper or domestic servant in the staff housesReason: of an industrial Control test is present which reflects the existence to control Respondent over her functions which is the Erlinda Castaneda company cook very indication of the existence of employer -employee relationship

2. Castaneda was a regular employee of said form because she does cater exclusively to the personal comfort of Mr. Tan and his family but serving the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family in the home of employer 4

Petitioner Coca Cola Bottling No employer-employee Supreme court ruled in favor of Coca Cola Company relationshipBottling Company

Reason: The four fold test in determining the existence of employer-Respondent employee relationship was not Do.c Dean N. Climaco medical doctor hired by the pet.present; they are ; selection and engagement, payment of wage , power of dismissal and power of control

5

Petitioner Lopez concessionare lady keeper taskef in manning the ladies room

Respondent Bodega City

6

Petitioner Jeromie D. Escasinas Evan Rigor Singco

Respondent Jessica Joyce Pepito Shagrilla Mactan Island Resort

ULP123Case Parties and Is there Unfair Labor Practice?If there is no unfair Labor practice , What is the final disposition Case No If there is, What were acts that Reason / Expalin on Unfair Labor Practice ?constituted ULP. Reason/Explain 1No unfair abor practice because under The petition was denied. Supreme court Petitioner the law contract out jobs was validaffirmed the decision of NRC and CA and exercise of management prerogative tofound out petitoner was unable to prove itsGeneral Santos Coca-Colameet exigent circumstances.charge of unfair abor practices. Unfair labor Plant Free Workers Union-practice refer to " acts that violate the workers'right to organize. Its must be related to the Respondent workers' right to self organization and the Coke General Santos, CA &observance of a CBA. These acts are not presentNLRCon the case at bar.

2Petitioner Employees Union of Bayer Yes there is an unfair labor because Article The petition for review on certiorari isPhils. FFW et., al253 of the Labor Code provides that where therepartly granted . Respondent Bayer Philippinesis a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shallare found liable for unfair labor practice andmean that either the party shall terminate orare hereby Ordered to remit to petitioner the modify such agreement during its lifetime. amount of P254,857.15 representing the The employer is not allowed to rescind collected union dues previously turned-overRespondent unilaterally its CBA with the SEBA it previouslyto Avelino and Anastacia Remigio.Bayer Philippines Inc. Dietercontracted with, and decide to bargain with aLonishem, et.aldifferent group it there is no legitimate reasonof doing without following the procedure.Case No.162943This act violated unfair labor practice.

3Petitioner Insular life assurance Co. LTDYes, there was an unfair labor practice. The ff.The Supreme court ruled that modification forEmployee Association NATUacts constituted Unfair Labor Practice.The decision in 1971 was affirmed in all other FGU Insurance group workers 1.) employer notified absent employeesrespects. The mentioned acts by the employer& Employees Association-individually during a strike , unproductive constituted unfair labor practice.NATU, and Insurance Life efforts at collective bargaining - active inter-Building Employees ference with the right of collective bargainingAssociationthrough dealing with the employees individuallyinstead of through their collective bargaining representative.Respondent 2. ) Individual solicitation of the employees The Insular Life Assuranceor visiting their homes, with the employer or Co., LTD, FGU Insurance Grouphis rep. urging the employees to cease union Jose M. Olbes activity or cease striking 3. ) offering reinstatement and attempted tobribe the strikers with comfortabe cots, freecoffee and occasional movies overtime pay'"work performed in excess of eight hours", aarrangement for their families s they can abandon the strike and return - guilty of strikebreaking and or union busting

4Supreme Court reverse and set aside the Petitioner No, there was no Unfair Labor practicedecision of Court of Industrial relati and newLakas Manggagawangbecause the respondent did not violatejudgement is rendered holding the respondent Makabayanthe terms of the Return to work Marcelo Companies not guilty of Unfair laboragreement negotiated after the firstpractice.strike. All the strikers admitted back towork except for the 4 who have administrative case.Respondent The companies refusal to accede to the Meralcodemands of Lakas appears to be justified since there is no showing thatCase No. ULP No. 4951these companies were I n the same state of financial and economic affairs.

5

Petitioner Yes there is unfair labor practice . RefusalUnfair labor pracrtice is present on the Colegio De San Juan de to bargain in good faith with the case at bar because of totality of conduct Letranrespondent renders the petitioner of the employer shows an evident the guilty of unfair labor practice attempt to restrain the employees from fully exercising their rights under the Reason: law. The right to self-organization of The company refuse to make counter employees must not be interferedRespondent proposal to the union's proposed CBA, they with the employer on the pretext of Association of Employeesdont even bother to submit an answer toexercising management prerogative Faculty of Letranthe bargaining proposals of the union of disciplining its employees.Eleonor Ambas which is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively and show a lack of sincere desire to negotiate which constituteunfair labor practice .

6

Petitioner No unfair labor practice because the Unfair labor practice refers to acts thatGSWU- NAFLU (KMU)closure or cessation of business violate the worker's right to organizeoperations was due to serious businessand are defined in Article 248 and 261losesses or financial reverses and not byof the Labor Code. The prohibited actsany alleged anti union position. relate to the worker's right to self-Respondent organization and the observance of NLRC, Galaxie steel corp.Collective Bargaining Agreement which and Ricardo Chengis not present on the case at bar.

Case No. C.A G.R NO. 68669 NLRC NCR C.A NO. 026956-00

7

Petitioner The Supreme Court ruled that there is ULP. St. John Colleges There is an unfair labor practice . The act or theThe labor code does not authorize the closure was done in bad faith for the purpose employer to close down the of circumventing the Union's right to collective establishment on the ground of illegal orbargaining and its member's right to securityexcessive demands of the Union. Respondent of tenure.The closure was done in bad faith for the St. John Academy facultyof circumventing the Union's right to collective and Employees Union bargaining and its member's right to securityof tenure.Case No. RAB-IV-5-10039 -98-L

8

Petitioner Norma MabezaYes, there is an Unfair labor practice because of 2 reasons:1.)respondent act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating rtat the employer The supreme court ruled that there wasobserved labor standards provisions of the lawan unfair labor practice because of theRespondent when he might have not constitute unfair exerted pressure, In the form of Associated Labor Union ( ALU)labor practice.restraint , interference or coercion NLRCagainst the employees right to institute2.) the act of terminating or coercing thaose whoconcerted action for better terms and refuse to cooperate with the employer's condition of employment as provided scheme in the labor code of the Philippines.

9

Petitioner Supreme Court ruled that there is BalmarYes there is unfair labor practice .unfair labor practice because refusal Employer's refusal to bargain collectively by the Balmar to bargain collectively constitutes an unfair labor practice whichwith ALU is a clear act of unfair labor is present on the case at bar. practive as mentioned in Article 248 (g) Reason:Respondent The duty to bargain collectivelyNLRCas way of performing a mutual obligationto meet and convene promptly and expeditiously for the purpose of negotiatingCase No. 1114-LR-XI-83aspect like wages, hours of work, and all other terms and condtions was denied bythe respondent

10

Petitioner No, there is no unfair labor practice.The pull-out of machinery, equipmentsComplex Electronics and materials is called a "runaway shop"Employees Association Reason: which is defined as an industrial plant The pull-out of the machinery, moved by its owner from one locationequipment and materials from the to another to escape from union laborcompanypremises, which resulted to theregulations or state law.sudden closure of the company was notThe Union failed to show that the primaryRespondent a violation of Section 3 and 8, Rule XIII,reason for the closure of the NLRCBook 5 of the Labor code of the Phil. And establishment was due to the union the existing CBA.activities of the employeesG.R no.121315

Case Analysis on Unfair Labor PracticePart IIISubmitted by:Lourdes C. GacusanaSubmitted to:Labor Relations Student Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma

Sheet3