Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Amanda Rance Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of 125 employees for alleged disloyalty due to joining another union was unjustified and constituted an unfair labor practice. The union failed to present sufficient evidence that the employees had actually joined another union. At most, seeking help from the other union due to desperation was an act of self-preservation, not disloyalty. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the union was unfair and violated principles of due process since it was not impartial. The hasty mass dismissal of employees also showed connivance between the company and union to punish the employees in bad faith. The Court found the company and union guilty of unfair labor practices.

Uploaded by

Kimsey Clyde Devoma
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
86 views1 page

Amanda Rance Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of 125 employees for alleged disloyalty due to joining another union was unjustified and constituted an unfair labor practice. The union failed to present sufficient evidence that the employees had actually joined another union. At most, seeking help from the other union due to desperation was an act of self-preservation, not disloyalty. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the union was unfair and violated principles of due process since it was not impartial. The hasty mass dismissal of employees also showed connivance between the company and union to punish the employees in bad faith. The Court found the company and union guilty of unfair labor practices.

Uploaded by

Kimsey Clyde Devoma
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/ 1

Amanda Rance vs NLRC

G.R. No. 68147. June 30, 1988. || TOPIC: Unfair Labor Practices Committed by A Labor Organization

FACTS: The CBA was entered into by the Corporation and Union which provides that: (1) An employee
within the bargaining unit who is a member of the union, shall continue to be a member in good standing
of the union as a condition of continued employment in the company; (2) Any employee hired during the
effectivity of the agreement shall, within 30 days after becoming regular join the UNION and continue
to be a member in good standing thereof as a condition of continued employment in the company; and (3)
the company shall dismiss from the service any member of the Union who loses his membership either by
resignation or expulsion for disloyalty; acts inimical to the interest of the Union; Failure and refusal to pay
Union dues; offense or crime; and organizing and/or joining another labor organization.

Petitioners were among the members of the respondent union who were expelled by the latter for
disloyalty in that they allegedly joined NAFLU—a large federation. Petitioners sued for reinstatement
and backwages stating their dismissal was without due process. Losing in both LA and NLRC decisions-
raised to SC.

Respondent Union as already stated expelled 125 members on the ground of disloyalty and acts
inimical to the interests of the Union. Both the LA and the NLRC found the CBA and the Union
Security Clause valid and considered the termination of the petitioners justified thereunder, for having
committed an act of disloyalty for having affiliated with NAFLU. Petitioners insist that their expulsion from
the Union and consequent dismissal from employment have no basis whether factual or legal, because
they did not in fact affiliate themselves with another Union, the NAFLU. They contend that they did not
sign the complaint, neither did they sign any document of membership application with NAFLU.

Significantly, none of private respondents was able to present any evidence to the contrary except for one
employee who admitted having authorized NAAFLU to file the complaint but only for the purpose of
questioning the funds of the Union.

Placed in the proper perspective, the mere act of seeking help from the NAFLU cannot constitute
disloyalty as contemplated in the CBA. At most it was an act of self-preservation of workers who, driven
to desperation found shelter in the NAFLU who took cudgels for them. Petitioners complained that their
pleas for their union officers to fight for their right to reinstatement, fell on deaf ears. Their union leaders
continued working and were not among those laid-off. All they could offer was a statement “marunong pa
kayo sa kumpanya”. Under the circumstances, petitioners cannot be blamed for seeking help wherever it
could be found.

In fact even assuming that petitioners did authorize NAFLU to file the action for them, it would have been
pointless because NAFLU cannot file an action for members of another union. The proper remedy would
be to drop the union as a party to the action and place the names of the employees instead.

In the hearing or investiagation issue; majority of the petitioners did not receive notice of summons hence
were not able to attend and even assuming they were able to, it could not have altered the fact tha thte
proceedings were violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play since it will be composed of
members of respondent union.

All told, it is obvious that in the absence of any full blown investigation of the expelled members of the
Union by an impartial body, there is no basis for respondent Union’s accusations. Dismissal, although a
management prerogative, is not unlimited and should yield to the principles of just cause and authorized
cause. In the case at bar, the scandalous haste with which respondent corporation dismissed 125
employees lends credence to the claim that there was connivance between respondent corporation and
respondent union. It is evident that private respondents were in bad faith in dismissing petitioners. They,
the private respondents, are guilty of unfair labor practice.

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