part 2 - Chan Robles and Associates Law Firm

Pre-Week Guide on Labor Law 2006 Bar Examinations Prof. Joselito Guianan Chanpositions without reduction in rank, payment of three-year backwages and payment of exemplarydamages.Consequently, it was declared by the High Court that the scandalous haste with whichrespondent corporation dismissed 125 employees lent credence to the claim that there wasconnivance between respondent corporation and respondent union. It is evident that privaterespondents were in bad faith in dismissing petitioners. They, the private respondents, are guiltyof unfair labor practice.CASES NOT INVOLVING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.The following cases do not involve unfair labor practice:1. The grant of profit-sharing benefits to managers, supervisors and all rank-and-fileemployees not covered by the CBA is not discriminatory but a valid exercise of managementprerogative. Management has the prerogative to regulate, according to its discretion andjudgment, all aspects of employment. Such management prerogative may be availed of withoutfear of any liability so long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’sinterest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees underspecial laws or valid agreement and is not exercised in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictiveor wanton manner or out of malice or spite. (Wise and Co., Inc. vs. Wise and Co., Inc. EmployeesUnion, G. R. No. 87677, Oct. 13, 1989).2. In the absence of a showing that the illegal dismissal was dictated by anti-unionmotives, it does not constitute an unfair labor practice that would justify the staging of a strike.The remedy is an action for reinstatement with prayer for backwages and damages.(AHS/Philippine Employees Union vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 73721, March 30, 1987).3. The transfer of employees is a prerogative of management such as in one case wherethe employee who was transferred to a lower position, retained his original rank and salary. Inthe absence of any evidence which directly reflects interference by the company with theemployee’s right to self-organization, the transfer of the employee should be considered legal.(Rubberworld [Phils.], Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 75704, July 19, 1989).4. The promotion of employees to managerial positions is a prerogative of management.A promotion which is manifestly beneficial to an employee should not give rise to a gratuitousspeculation that such a promotion was made simply to deprive the union of the membership of thepromoted employee. (Bulletin Publishing Co. vs. Sanchez, G. R. No. 74425, Oct. 7, 1986).5. Mandatory or forced vacation leaves imposed by the employer due to economic crisisand not in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive nor wanton manner, where the workers werepaid while on leave but the same was charged against their respective earned leaves, is not anunfair labor practice act. It is a valid exercise of management prerogative. (Philippine GraphicArts, Inc. vs. NLRC, 166 SCRA 118).6. The dismissal of an employee due to loss of confidence is not unfair labor practice.(Nevans vs. CIR, G. R. No. L-21510, June 29, 1968).7. The dismissal of an employee cannot be considered an unfair labor practice act if itappears that other employees more active than him in the union were retained. (National Union ofRestaurant Workers [PTUC] vs. CIR, G. R. No. L-20044, April 30, 1964).8. The act of the employer in refusing to re-admit striking workers after the strike wasdeclared illegal, is not an unfair labor practice act. (GOP-OCP Workers Union vs. CIR, G. R. No.L-33015, Sept. 10, 1979).9. Dismissal of workers pursuant to the union security clause in the CBA, after affordingthem due process, is not unfair labor practice. (Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield(MSMG-UWP) vs. Ramos, G. R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000; Malayang Manggagawa vs. AngTibay, 102 Phil. 669; Bacolod-Murcia Milling vs. Victorias-Manapla Workers, 9 SCRA 154).28