Scribd
Upload
145 views2 pages

Culili V Eastern Telecommunications PH

Nelson Culili was employed as a Technician by Eastern Telecommunications Ph (ETPI) for 15 years until he was dismissed due to a company reorganization and redundancy. Culili claimed his dismissal was an unfair labor practice (ULP) and illegal as his duties were contracted out to non-union members. The labor arbitrator found ETPI guilty of ULP and illegal dismissal but these rulings were overturned on appeal. While Culili's dismissal due to redundancy was valid, ETPI failed to follow proper procedure and was ordered to pay nominal damages for lack of notice, in addition to separation pay.

Uploaded by

Clarence Protacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views2 pages

Culili V Eastern Telecommunications PH

Nelson Culili was employed as a Technician by Eastern Telecommunications Ph (ETPI) for 15 years until he was dismissed due to a company reorganization and redundancy. Culili claimed his dismissal was an unfair labor practice (ULP) and illegal as his duties were contracted out to non-union members. The labor arbitrator found ETPI guilty of ULP and illegal dismissal but these rulings were overturned on appeal. While Culili's dismissal due to redundancy was valid, ETPI failed to follow proper procedure and was ordered to pay nominal damages for lack of notice, in addition to separation pay.

Uploaded by

Clarence Protacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Culili v Eastern Telecommunications Ph  Re: ULP—the contracting out of Culili’s functions to non-

union members violated his rights as a union member;


FACTS ETPI was not able to dispute Culili’s claims of
Nelson Culili was employed as a Technician, and was promoted to discrimination and subcontracting
Senior Technician after 15 years. In 1998, due to business troubles  The earlier version of the letter was a telling sign of the
and losses, ETPI implemented a two-phased Right-Sizing Program: intention to dismiss even before declaration of redundancy.
reduction of ETPI’s workforce, then a company-wide reorganization The ground that ETPI was actually invoking was retrenchment,
(transfer, merger, absorption or abolition of departments). ETPI but ETPI stuck to redundancy since it was easier to prove and
offered a Special Retirement Program to employees who have been there was intent of ETPI to dismiss him even before the
in service for at least 15 years. Of all the employees who qualified, redundancy. ETPI failed to present reasonable criteria to
only Culili rejected the offer. Another department absorbed the justify declaration of redundancy.
functions of Culili’s unit (Service Quality Department) and his position NLRC - affirmed.
was abolished (and was eventually absorbed by another employee)
due to redundancy. Culili wrote to the union president in protest. He CA – VALID DISMISSAL, NO ULP
was informed of his termination from employment through a  Re: ULP—mere contracting out of services being
letter from the ETPI AVP. This letter was similar to the memo performed by union members does not per se amount to
shown to Culili by the union president weeks before Culili was ULP unless it interferes with the employees’ right to self-
dismissed. organization.
 Culili’s position validly abolished due to redundancy. ETPI
Culili claims that ETPI contracted out the services he used to officers cannot be held liable absent a showing of bad faith of
perform to a labor-only contractor, which not only proved that malice. HOWEVER, ETPI failed to observe due process when
his functions had not become unnecessary, but which also it failed to notify both Culili and DOLE of the termination.
violated the CBA and LC. In addition, neither he nor the DOLE was
formally notified of his termination. He found out about it when he was Issue:
handed a copy of the letter, after he was barred from entering ETPI’s WoN Culili’s dismissal can be considered as ULP. NO. However,
premises. ETPI already decided to dismiss him even prior to the ETPI has to pay nominal damages for non-compliance with statutory
AVP’s letter, as evidenced by an earlier version of the letter. due process, in addition to the mandatory separation pay [LC 283].

ETPI denied hiring outside contractors to perform Culili’s work. It RATIO


also denied singling Culili out for termination. The abolition of Culili’s
department and the absorption of its functions by another department Redundancy: there is redundancy when the service capability of the
were in line with the Right-Sizing Program’s goals. Since Culili did not workforce is greater than what is reasonably required to meet the
avail of the Special Retirement Program and his position was demands of the business enterprise. It is redundant if it is rendered
subsequently declared redundant, ETPI had no choice but to superfluous by any number of factors such as overhiring, decrease in
terminate Culili. Because there was no more work for him, it was volume of business or dropping a particular product line or service.
constrained to serve a final notice of termination, which Culili ignored. This determination properly belongs to the employer, provided
that there is no violation of law or showing that the employer was
Culili filed a complaint for ULP, illegal dismissal, and money prompted by an arbitrary or malicious act.
claims before the LA. However, an employer cannot simply declare that it has become
overmanned and dismiss its employees without proof to
LA – ETPI GUILTY OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND ULP (AFFIRMED redundancy. There must be good faith of the employer and fair and
BY NLRC) reasonable criteria in ascertaining what positions are to be declared
redundancy. No bad faith can be attributed as culled from the
evidence presented by the employer.

Culili alleges ULP on the part of the employer. ULP 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. An employer may only be held liable for unfair labor
practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever
manner the right of his employees to self-organize.

Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for


prosecution thereof. ------ Unfair labor practices violate the
constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are
inimical to the legitimate interest of both labor and management,
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with
each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt
industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-
management relations.
There is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its Right-
Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith or malice, or that it
was aimed at interfering with its employees’ right to self-organization.
ETPI negotiated and consulted with the SEBA before
implementing the program. By imputing bad faith to ETPI’s actuations,
Culili has the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to
support the allegation of ULP. Culili failed to discharge this burden
and his bare allegations deserve no credit.

Petition DENIED. Employer to pay petitioner nominal damages for


non-compliance with procedural due process of notice, in addition to
the mandatory separation pay.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy