Anny wie Acts considered as ULP of employers Art, 258 (a) of the Code considers it an unfair labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. The right to self-organization necessarily includes the right to collective bargaining. Examples of acts of employers constituting _as ULP by _ interfering ’ restraining or —_ coercing employees in the exercise of their right = to self organization. (1) When an employee was asking other employees to join the union, the employer demanded that said-employee deliver to him the affiliation papers which the employee had with him. Upon refusal by the employee, the employer called him a troublemaker and threatened him with bodily harm, x. When the members of the union went to see the employer, he did not listen to their representations, but instead caused them to be arrested upon the charge that they were making trouble in his office, under the excuse that his wife had told him that they were armed and intent on harming him, although no overt acts to this effect were performed by them. These acts constituted interference in the exercise of the employee's right to self-organization. ~ Velez vs. PAV Watchmen’s Union, L-12639, April 27, 1960. (2) The NURC found the employer, Hacienda Fatima, guilty of unfair labor practice by holding as follows: “Indeed, from respondents’ refusal to bargain, to their acts of economic inducements resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew from the union, the use of armed guards to prevent the organizers to come in, and the dismissal of union officials and members, one cannot but conclude that respondents did not want a union in their hacienda - a cleat interference in the right of the workers to self-organization.” The Supreme Court held: “Indeed, factual finding of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but also iBfinality. Their findings are binding on the Supreme Court. x", — Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers — Food and General Trade, G.R. No. 149440, Jan. 28, 2003. (3) Dismissal of union members upon their refusal to give up their membership, under the pretext of retrenchment due to reduced doliar allocations (Manila Pencil Co. vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-16903, Aug. 31, 1965). (4) An employer which closed its business to put an end to a union's activities, and which made no effort to allow the employees! attempt to exercise their right to self-organization and collective bargaining, and even threatening the employees that they would lose their jobs if they did not cease affiliation with the union, commits unfair labor practice (Sy Chie Junk Shop and Chie Cheng vs. FOITAF, et al., G.R. No. L-30964, May 9, 1988). “Totality of conduct” doctrine The doctrine holds that the culpability of employer's remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implications, but against the background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. Under this doctrine, expressions of opinion by an employer, though innocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particular employer's labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference. Under this doctrine it was held, as previously observed, that an expression which might be permissibly uttered by one employer, might, in the mouth of a more hostile employer, be deemed improper and consequently actionable as an unfair labor practice. In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd, vs. Employees Association-ATU, et al. vs. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., GR. No, L-25291, Jan. 30, 1991, the company president sent individual letters to the striking employees urging them to abandon their strike with a promise of free coffee and movies and free overtime. He also warned them that if they failed to return to work by a certain date, they might be replaced in their jobs. Aside from this, company-hired men broke into picket lines, resulting in violence and the filing of criminal charges against some union officers and members. When the strike was over, the company refused to re-admit unionists facing criminal charges. The Court ruled that 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 according to the “totality of conduct” dactrine. “Yellow dog” contract A “yellow dog" contract is an agreement which contains, in addition to the usual provisions for employment, the following three provisions: (1) A representation by the employee that he is not a member of a labor union; (2) A promise by the employee not to join a labor union; and (3) A promise by the employee that upon joining a union, he will quit his employment. Tt implies that the employee who signed such contract is a cowardly dog who is subservient to his master (the employer) by renouncing his right to self-organization. Contracting out services or functions being performed by union members Some aspects of the work or jobs in the company may be contracted out to Independent job contractors. Contracting out services or functions is not ULP per se, It becomes ULP only when the following conditions exist: (1) the services or functions contracted out are being performed by union members and, (2) such contracting-out interferes with, restrains, coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization The employer is not guilty of ULP in contracting out services for valid business reasons such as decline in business, inadequacy of equipment or the need to reduce cost, as long as it is done in good faith. For as held in De Ocampo vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 652, the company can determine in its best business judgment whether it should contract out the performance of its work for as long as it is motivated by good faith, and the contracting out must not have been resorted to circumvent the law or must not have been the result of malicious or arbitrary action. Nonetheless, contracting out may be restricted in the CBA as when, for example, management and the union agreed that certain aspects of the work or jobs in the company may not be contracted during the lifetime of the CBA.