Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Pal VS NLRC

    Uploaded by

    raminicoff
    PAL revised its employee code of discipline in 1985 without consulting the employees' union PALEA. PALEA filed a complaint arguing this was an unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter found no bad faith by PAL but noted PAL failed to properly circulate the new code and lacked evidence it informed all employees. The Supreme Court ruled that while setting work rules is a management right, provisions affecting employee rights like security of tenure require transparency and discussion with employees. Even before the relevant law was passed, the state's policy was to inform employees of their rights and involve them in decisions impacting their welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pal VS NLRC

    Uploaded by

    raminicoff
    71 views2 pages
    PAL revised its employee code of discipline in 1985 without consulting the employees' union PALEA. PALEA filed a complaint arguing this was an unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter found no bad faith by PAL but noted PAL failed to properly circulate the new code and lacked evidence it informed all employees. The Supreme Court ruled that while setting work rules is a management right, provisions affecting employee rights like security of tenure require transparency and discussion with employees. Even before the relevant law was passed, the state's policy was to inform employees of their rights and involve them in decisions impacting their welfare.

    Original Title

    46. PAL VS NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PAL revised its employee code of discipline in 1985 without consulting the employees' union PALEA. PALEA filed a complaint arguing this was an unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter found no bad faith by PAL but noted PAL failed to properly circulate the new code and lacked evidence it informed all employees. The Supreme Court ruled that while setting work rules is a management right, provisions affecting employee rights like security of tenure require transparency and discussion with employees. Even before the relevant law was passed, the state's policy was to inform employees of their rights and involve them in decisions impacting their welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Pal VS NLRC

    Uploaded by

    raminicoff
    PAL revised its employee code of discipline in 1985 without consulting the employees' union PALEA. PALEA filed a complaint arguing this was an unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter found no bad faith by PAL but noted PAL failed to properly circulate the new code and lacked evidence it informed all employees. The Supreme Court ruled that while setting work rules is a management right, provisions affecting employee rights like security of tenure require transparency and discussion with employees. Even before the relevant law was passed, the state's policy was to inform employees of their rights and involve them in decisions impacting their welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    46.

    PAL VS NLRC, GR NO 85985, AUG 13, 1993

    FACTS:

    On March 15, 1985, the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code of
    Discipline. The Code was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith
    subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. Thus, on August 20, 1985, the
    Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before the National Labor
    Relations Commission for unfair labor practice. PALEA contended that PAL, by its unilateral
    implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice. PALEA alleged that copies of
    the Code had been circulated in limited numbers; and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive,
    and prejudicial to the rights of the employees. It prayed that implementation of the Code be
    held in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA; that
    employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to further hearing;
    and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages. In
    response, PAL asserts that when it revised its Code on March 15, 1985, there was no law which
    mandated the sharing of responsibility therefor between employer and employee nor sharing
    with the union or its employees its prerogative of formulating a code of discipline

    The Labor Arbiter in a decision rendered finds no bad faith on the part of PAL in adopting the
    Code and ruling that no unfair labor practice had been committed. However PAL was "not
    totally fault free" considering that while the issuance of rules and regulations governing the
    conduct of employees is a "legitimate management prerogative" such rules and regulations
    must meet the test of "reasonableness, propriety and fairness." The LA also noticed that PAL
    failed to prove that the new Code was amply circulated; that PAL's assertion that it had
    furnished all its employees copies of the Code is unsupported by documentary evidence.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of


    the employer and the employees. (YES)

    RULING:

    A line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se
    and those which affect the rights of the employees. In treating the latter, management should
    see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action.

    A close scrutiny of the objectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not purely
    business oriented nor do they concern the management aspect of the business of the company.
    The provisions of the Code clearly have repercussions on the employees’ right to security of
    tenure. The implementation of the provisions may result in the deprivation of an employee's
    means of livelihood which is a property right. PAL’s position that it cannot be saddled with the
    obligation of sharing management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code, Republic
    Act No. 6715 had not yet been enacted, cannot be sustained. While such obligation was not yet
    founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a harmonious labor-
    management relationship and the then already existing state policy of enlightening workers
    concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of transparency in
    managerial moves affecting employees' rights.

    Industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just participation in the
    discussion of matters affecting their rights. Thus, even before Article 211 of the labor Code
    (P.D. 442) was amended by RA No. 6715, it was already declared a policy of the State, "(d) To
    promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . . . as
    employees." This was, of course, amplified by Republic Act No 6715 when it decreed the
    "participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights, duties
    and welfare."

    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