BARQ&A FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS LABOR LAW BENEDICT GUIREY KATO Labor Arbiter NCR, Law Professor 2020 Edition2008 BAR EXAMINATIONS. i ‘a Explain tho automatic renewal clause of cole tive Bargaining agreements. (33), , Explain the extont ofthe workers right f pa fag under Arle Section 3 of te Phitepine Cone tition, Does it Include membership In the Board of Directors ofa corporation? (3) (@) Automatic Renewal Clause ‘Won he poltical feof a collactve bargaiing 23 rent (CBA) expres, a provsione wll conn {oto tes fe untla now CBA w concldee, Ths ula spies ta both brigial and vonegateted of extendea COy (6) Rightto Paripate The ght io pariopat, as ensvned in Sec. 3, At XI ofthe Constuon, ste ltt be par of he deliberate Sand aaoplve phases of poey and dacsen rmsing on ms tars alsin workers rants, benefis and waar, Ts hi does nt cover aural bosinessdectiens (PAL NLRC, et 1, GI, No. 85985, 13 August 1985) ara te determine fon of retenion etoria in retreatment (FAGAP v. PAL GRR No. 178089, 12 March 2078. Board membership isnot inl in the right to pat sipats. The pariopaton provision dose nok provite Sfertet to board manberenp which fa by slecion oni Hewsvar, by concession, he employer may perm wor ars roprasertaton nis sea of governane, €.)., by Way Of rasaoff 5 get ths union to apres to barging moIalofum arangemert (Rivera, at al. v: Espirit, ef Gi No, 125547, 24 January 2002, 8, What issues or disputes may be the subject of voluntary arbivatian under the Labor Code’ (4%) Can a disput fling within the oxcusive jure- diction ofthe Labor Arter bo submited to voluntary larbtaton? Why or hy not? (2%). €. Cana dispute falling within the jurisdiction of @ voluntary arbitrator be submitted to compulsory ari Fation? Why or why not? (3%) Answars {@} The following may be brought fo voluntary abt ‘ate Mat a aor Glow putes a8 may be ayfaad upon by tha partes to a GBA er Simiar agreement to be trough to voluntary arbiratx (Are 278, Labor Code) (Yes, A disput panding before the Labor Atier moy b brought to vouriary artrstio In absarvance ofthe cont tutional sete on referent! use of volar modes dispute resolution, By agreement ofthe depute, hor ‘or, thei ssues may be brovat oUt of ths compulcory breton process (Art. 226, Labor Code) for toaolton by 1 thi party mtu chosen by san (Art, 274 and 275, Labor Cade (6) Yee, a caputecriinaly ten cognizance of by @ voluntsyerbteion body may be brought or rssiaion 1 23 compulsory abivation booy. nan assumed case tho Socotry of Labor eversises dieretonan, peor, cena ar Sere Dove ail issues belween the same partes pending elewhe, in ‘using these berg Reerd by a voluntary aire, shall bo elseumed toe sesumad case for sltansous reso hiton Savoy Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring taleiacios on fivearonth eyes, Atte end of a saleslecys fivemmonth torm, another person is head se reslacoment, Saloslaies ated to store cus tomers, were SDS uniforms, part at specified hows, and are subject to SDS workplace rules ah rogula: tions. Those who refuse the Snonth employiont so tract ar not hited The day aftor expiration of her month engage: mont, Linn wore her SDS white and blue uniform ane Faported Yor work but was denied entry into the stare premises. Agitated, sha went on a hunger ste. ane Stationed herself in front of ane ofthe gates of SDS Soon therosttr, other employees whose Smonth frm had also olapsod joined Lin's hunger trike (a) Lina and 20 otha sales lado filed 9 complaint {or legal dismissal, contending that they are SDS ro ‘ular employeos as they performed activites usually Fecessary of desirable im the usual business or tad (OF SDS and thus, their constitutional ight to security‘of tenure was violated whan they wore dismissed with- Sut wala, just or authorized cause. SDS, in defonsa, lrgued that Lina, ota agreed - prior to engagement - tove fixed periad employment and thus waived thelr Fight to a fullterm tenure, Dace the dispute (4%) (5) The owner of SDS. considered tho hunger strike stagod by Lina etal an eyesore and disruptive GF S08 Business, He wrote the Secretary of Labor = inter asking him to assume juisdietion over the dis- pute and enjoin the hunger “striko™. What answer wll {Jou give it you ware the Secrotary of Labor? (3%) {) Assume that no fhxed-torm worker compained, yotin routine inspection 4 labor laspactor of the Rex ional Ofce of the Labor Code's sacurty of tenure rovisions and recommended to the Regionel Director {he issuance s compliance order. The Regional Diree- tor adopted the recommendation and issued a.com: pllanee order, Is the compliance order valle? Explain your anewor (3%) Answer: |i eve me employees favorable resolution ‘The set of $08 in danyng Lin ot. etry Int ts pre- rises fs an over ac of areal The frdorm employ tent onract that exprod on them are emirate of 2c "al seoury, hay cannat be allowed Yo roauce any 98 ‘fect Consequenty, sven tha natura cf tet work as one nats usualy enable or necessary ihe Usual Yada of 858, Lina el atared tare and cou only be disse ‘sted ora just or autorce cause. Sina te ground re (b> | dct. Tha business angaged in by SDS is nt of ational in tors i) eneractar Based on jrisprudanc, the folowing ‘30 NI Industiss host, energy production, ai tafe Scone) ransporation, water producton, expr, re 5:0 duction Banking, edvenion, cfuge ars pharmacsutess foducion ef rooting materats and Star Motte. Unser BOLE 6.0. 4.13, which nes enertsra te foregoing NI Tish nly th flowing are Ni ingustes: water procucton Fospials, energy production, ar vaffe cortl and suc ter industres atthe Nationa. Tipe Industrial Com nitson (NTIC) may curly 2 NI. Under either ist, SDS nese fs devo of Ni character sloce tere is no national Itarest to protect teu my 28 (9 The Regional Director cannot sue such Com ance Order or want of jursacion Nolte vsioaVenforcement paver (Art. 128, Labor code} nce acusesory power (Ar 129, Labor Code) the Reslonal Decor peri hm f eso tho tenia ssue. ‘rer, tho only tril esue haan reals fe ae ing Sh spgrenon (arts, Labor Code) tasareahay (Soe. 37 R.A. 10361) c alr (DOLE Advisory 4 5 2070). Here vine none of salt workers invohed, Ne sue sr Ubtor Arter to resolve (rt. 224, Labor Code). Terre, the orders rat val ‘Super Comfort Hotel employed a regular pool of extra waters” iio ate called or asked to tepor for duty when the Hote's volume of Business Is beyond the capecty of th regulary employed waiters to Undertake. Pedro has boon an “extra Walter" for ore{han 10 years: Ho Is aso called upon to work on week ‘na, on holldays and who thera are big affair a the te Wihat is Pocra’s status a8 an employes under tho Labor Code? Why? Explain your sneer al (8) Pedro's 2 regular emeloyse ‘One wna peronms work which ie usualy necessary or lesrgbs the usual Vado offs employer's converted Fegular employment salu by force of fw (Art. 266, Labor oul) Here. te work pal to wnicn Pada beers i pool of emergency workers utioe serine ae vi nds enseble ano necessary and withou! wien the hoe can hot rest assured af ts ebity frum fe business win the help of is pon-pcl employees, v ‘The Plea Corporation (PixCarp) and Ready Sup ly Cooperative (RBC) entered inte a “sorvice epee: Inant” where RSC in consideration of sone fos to be paid by PlzCorps wil exclusively supply Plcorp witha group of RSC motorsyle-omning cooperate Tombers wh wil henceforth pertrm PCorys plaza Gelvery eornce, ROG ansumes under the agreement {ulobigation forthe payment othe salaries and other statutory monetary benefts of ts members deployed to PizGorp. The pares also stpulatod that ther shel bo. no empleyerampioyee. lationship between Piecorp andthe RSC members However if Pixcorp Is ‘matory prepuciend by any ast ofthe Golivory Impose Siscitinay sanctions on, eluding the power tei ins, te ering RSC momberi. {a} Io the contractual stipulation that there is no employeremplayee relationship binding on labor of: flale? Why? Explatn fly. (35), (b) Based on the tots for employer-omployeo co lationship, determine the issu af who i the smployer ofthe REC members. (4%). (e) Assume that RSC has a pelé-up captaization of P,000,000.00, Is RSC engaged in “labor only" con- tractng, permiacibia job contacting, oF simpy recut mont? (8), Answer: (@) No “The sipuiaton against employer amployse reat sip lana val for ete reseons (1) emsloyeramayes Felalonehip isa quaton of sw ana (2) ke 6 question of fect Ava Question ofl, conaling eave lay Suppes ie Cognitive significance; lene, ites win the conten, piaton of tha Fourfold Test than erste in As 2 whether its lege’ meaning has fectusl representation in the ‘far between two persons; hence, he cont eerert = Sctusand in said afar thon smsioyerempiayes rlston Ship exste a6 fact For the foregoing reasons, pats io conacls cannot stoulate again! the exstonce of empoyeromployes ral () PaCorps he employer of he RSC members Since PzCorp exercises abo I conoept of con {netom ase ypos of sola. tonal eatin cont inurao, sour buses pretend pos productonsonl ~ then ie tbo etal amaye of a Stpples mangonerthan 10 years, Ho Is also called upon to work on woek= ‘ends, on hotlgays and whan there ao big afar atthe hotel What Is Posro's status as an omployes unde the Labor Cou? Why? Explain your answer fly. (6%) Answer: Pedro le a regular employe. (One win pertorms work wich is usualy necessary or desirable nthe usual rade of ie employar ls coneted regular employment status by force of law (art 298, Labor Cot) or, the work pod! to whicn Pedro beongs Is pool of emergency wortare whose servis are i na ot ret assured off abity fo nun ke business with jst the help of is non-pol employees v ‘The Plzza Corporation (PzCorp) and Resdy Sup ly Cooperative (RSC) entered Inte a "service agree tment" where RSC: in consideration of service toss to be pald by Plzcorp's will exclusively supply PaCorp with a group of RSC motoreycle-owning cooperative members who wil henceforth perform PaCorps plzra dalvery service. RSC assumes under te agreement {ul obigtion forthe payment ofthe salaries nd other statutory monotary benefits of HB membors eeployed fo PizGorp. The parti also stipulated that tere sh bbe no. employeramplayesrolstonship.botween Pircorp andthe RSC members. However Pzcorp fe mately prejualeed by any at ofthe delivery impose Glscipinry sanctions on, including the power 1 dlse miss the erring RSC memset. {a) Is the contractual stipulation that therw is no ‘omplayaremployee relationship binding on labor ol ale? Why? Explain fly. (356) (b) Based on th tests for employer-employee re- Iationship, determine the issue of wa is tne employor ofthe REC members (2%) (e) Assume that RSC hes 2 paie-up eaptaization ‘of P,000,000.0. [s RSC engaged in "labor only” con: teacting, permissible job contacting, or simply reat mont? (i), Answer (@ N The sipuion spun! emplyeramoloyee rane Felaonshp isa qustton of ur; ana (2) ks @ question of cognitive signeioanoe; lance, It exists within the contem- piaion ofa Fourfold Test than exten au As ‘whether ts lagal mesning hae facts! representation inthe ‘law betwoon two peteans; hence, the contol laments ‘tusks in solani then ampioyerenployee rato Shp exis sea fact For the foregoing raasons, partis to contacts cannot sipdate against tn existence of ployer amployes alae (b) Pizcorp ie te employer of he REC rem Since PizGorpexarlses abo: law conoegt of contol = cont owes mane and mane of parformance 95 oe lnct fom ether typos of eotol eg, eat! fant, bulls ontel in ieucanoe, sound Busses prectee. and post Production conizal~ than tis the atual employer of he Etppled manpoweremetic, ene (mors anooyes td fre War cess (2) RSC engaged in lnboronly contacting, RSC’: psié-up capt! of 000,000.00 fals short of the contacing financial capasty of P5,000,00000 pres- cba by B.O. 174, Moreover, not only does i lack subs. tel cdptl ts manpower s also conoid by Is orc Palas tomeant and mets of performing ts work In sum he egal status of RSC ie evidenced by is having bath the ceesrtal and confining elements of 2 |Sboronly contactor vl On the day thatthe Union could vat declare a stnko," the “Soortny of Labor sued” ogee assuming jurisdiction over the dlepute and hissing tho site, or f one has commenced, ordering te Stiking workers to immediatly four to wor The ‘ctumtowork order reuied the employees fo return {2 wore within wor ours and was creed st 6 ‘tn of the day the athe wa to star Tho ode ate fae tine fected the: Company to. tesapt ‘ah Smployees undor the samo terms and sondiers af smployment pir to the wort Sloppage, the ies members ld not return to" work the day the Secretary's sesumpion order au sted ot th tre Ssanst the company's alleged untae leber practcns Because of tne sccomparyingplket some of to employees who wanted fo turn te wee fle fo ‘0. 0n tho 3rd day, tho workers reported for work et ning that trey do 30 In compliance withthe Secret fy'stturnto.work order that binds thor a8 wal tho Company. The Company, Nowevar, elused to admit them back since they had violated the Secretary's 1 tumtoswore order and are now considered 19 have Tost ther employment status ‘Tho Union officers and members led 2 complaint for legal dismiseat arguing that there wae no strike but a protest rally which ls 8 val exercise ofthe wor ers consttutional right to peaceable assembly and freedom of expression. Hence, there was no basis for the termination of heir employment You aro the Labor Arbiter ta whom the ease was rated: Decide ruling onthe following fstes (a) Was thera strike? (44) (0) _ Were te employaes simpy exercising thee constitutional right to petiton for redness of hair ga. vances? (3%) (©) Vihat ore the consequences, f any, of the acts ofthe employees? (3%) Answer: (0) Yes, there was a sine ‘The elements ofa sso ao a} temporsy sorpegs cf work fo) concertee ctv and (labor souls Ato the fs the coninung rll means eaitremova om the fnployees" aca worplaee to parcpate the anion ‘ty Ronco, ae a temporary tcpaege of werk. he to ‘he cecond, tne aii uae atthe hance of nt jst afew ut of all excap nose ho wanted f9 teport fr work but oro bares. And, as fo the hid, the ULP complained of Signals iabor dapuna Batween tha rion and the core© No NW the substance ant not the appara of acon ‘ovtod notty wih dotermines the fac ots (aro Pubic Schools Teachers Assoc, v. Lagulo, uty GR. No. 98645, 6 August 199%) Whore th acy subst aly a se he invocation of peered towns me al such ese, eters wil onto, (The skis iegal fr ing villve of an in Junetors hence, tte shore must ba Meld answerabin, Ay Assumption ofjureceten order (AJO) whether expressly Sects retun To work or net, nas. an inuncte fect hence, must be Immesiaely complied wit by the union oon proper seve thereat, Aso uron menters wha have commie gato In the courea of paripntng n the legal ste ate ‘he lnion offers whe hae nate of tho asbumption of ura ‘eto cider (AJO) a knowinaly concent othe stasing the sine, thay can be demssed for serous misconssc (Toyota Hotors Workers Assoc. v. NLRC, GR. Nos. 418878629, 19 October 2007) find sinca ve gion (oh thal Glsmitst Is such, thay arent ented to rand sssstanan (3). vu Tito Pacincioso i an emloyse of foundry cho In Malabon, Mate ania, Het barely ale to make ends meet with his selary of P4 00008 a month, One ty, he asked his employee to stop deducting fom na ‘slay is 885 monty contin, reason ot tt he lswaving his social secury coverage. I you were it's employer, would you grant his request? why? (6%) Answer | would not gran To's request, [885 contibuton fs comulary fr both coved an ployer and covered employee. The pupoee of au et Ezmpel cnibuion fom the ealery of en employee aia hele productive n order fo etabien « coringeney Nid fom which he or his dependants can draw fo neame re Diovemant in te overt of retrement, sexness,saebity Frater, of death reeling in tose of neeme or fran burden (See. 2, R.A 8282). vn Carol dela Cruz isthe secretary of the proprstor of an auto deslership in Quezon city. She resides In Caloocan city. Her office hours start st 8 aa, and end 305 pum. On duly 30, 2008, a 7 am, while walling for publle tansport st Rizal Avenue Extension a0, ha= been her routine, sho was sldeswiped by a speeding {axleab resulting in her dent, The father of Caro fled 5 slain for employee's compensation with tho Sacial Security System. Wil the claim prosper? Wy’? (6%) ‘The comsnsatin calm wl proper Caro" death ie occupational under the Continuing ‘Act Rule. Unoss fer death resulted fom unreasonable ‘eparturo or unreasonable diversion. het ac faving Mer oma to goto her workincn and her act of leaving at workplace fo got back hore aro continuing ace. Nether ‘xcepton obtains henea, Mer death's sues fo compen:x ‘Assume that In Problem 5; Marlo, an RSC mombor disgusted with the nonpayment of his night shit fe Fential and overtime pay, fled a complaint with the DOLE Roslonal Offee against RSC and PizCorp. Atot Inspaction, twas found tnt Indoed Mario was not yet ling his correct aiflarenil ana overtime pay and that ha. was not declared an SSS membor (so that no pra= Imiums for SSS membership were ever remited). On this basi, the Regional Director ised 5 compliance ‘order holding PlzCorp and RSC solder lable for te Dayment of the corset diferential and ovortine pay Sand ordering PiaCorp to report Mario for membership wth 888 and romitaveraue S88 premiums Who has the obligation to report the RSC mom: bers for mombership withthe S58, withthe concomi= tant obligation to remit SSS promioma? Why? (5) Answer Pi2corp nes the obligation to repar all the RSC members for SSS coverage and to remit he concoritant 85 cortibuions. “The obigaton to repo anstar for SSS coverage x40 vert the coresponing sortuone sacs on nes beng an erplyer Under Seo. 8 of RA. 8202 soon Sto ances wen on ues fe senso nah ad artes the ators means and ratios penurmance, Sen baaed on conta ho owe of enor employes Testor a bet botwesn Pesop too he RSE trerers then the obgaton in qiston shoud be i pod on PCop as enclye. x Pope Santos vss an international flight stoward of Flyeate Aiines, Under FSA's Cabin Crow Administ tion Manual Santos mast maintain, given his height land body frame, 9 welght of 150 0 170 pounds. Aor 5 sonre aes fight steward, Santos bogan sirugeling with his waight; ne weighed 200 tbs, 30 pounds over the prescribed maximum waight. The Airine gave him Enesyoar period To stain the preserbed weight, an Shred him in several weight reduction programe, Ho Consistonty fled to mat hs tagat, He wae givon 3 Emonth grace period. after which he stl fall to ‘moet the Wolght limi. FSC thus sent him a Notice of Aaministratve Charge for violation of company ston- Garde on weight requirements. Ho statod in his aswar that, for medical reasons, he cannot have a rapid ‘weight oss, A clarfeatory hearing was held whore ‘Sentos fly explaines hie presicament. The explane tion did no saely FSA and go it dacidod to torminato Santos's service for violation of company standards Santos fled a complaint for legal slemiseal ar9Uins that te company's weight requirement polly Is Ur reasonable and that his ease ie nota eistplinary but a ‘medizal issue (a8 ona gots older, tho natural fondoncy is to grow hoavior) FSA dafended is poley as a val ‘sxercise of management prerogative and from the Doint of view of passonger safety ang extracranery ce Tigence requited by lew of common carters; it also [ested thet Santos falura to achieve his eeal weight onatituted gross and habitual ngiact of cuty, aswel ‘3 wilful dsobedionee to laful employer orders, The Llanor Aritr found the diamisest Mega for there wos nother gross and habitual neglect of duty nor wilful disobedience Ie the Labor Arsitr correct? Why or why not? explain fly (6%)In Yrasuegi v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008, tne Supreme Court ned inst ne seiny 0! @ eer Sandor by an iio corppany for aslety reasons Was reasonable exerise of management pressive, Despite the 1-year paid avon him to bing dann is weight fo acceptable leves, nat to montion Ne Emon [ace period, Santos cara tack heavier Geapit beng on ‘ole in several weight management programs, Thus, Ne noncompliance with tv walght sondard, which seed & legtimete puble satety purose, amounted to gross ond habitual neglect of duty and wnt aisobedence, x Complainant had worked five (5) yore a8 wait rannas n'a cockal lounge owned by the responsent ‘They id ot vealve any slay aveety rom een ondent bi shred inal sence charges ere food and rinks tothe oxen of TEE Wat reese ants prio pormission, sey could st wth ener tain questo ist the establishment and approsnn for themectves the ps given by guests Age nee Years, the complaint aviducl Shaves In eae ted saree chargen sipped fo bolow minum ots level a0 consequence ofthe lounge nentey hee toss decine, Thereupon, complainants seked ween dent to incroae tr ahare ie tees Sobers Shares to 86% or the inion wage veh aera ie hgner Respondent terminated the services of the com: Dlainants who countered by flings consolicated com Bla for unlawful lami, with prayer for 88% of the appropriate periods, whichever is higher. Decide em Respondent exercised substantial contr! over the complaiaris; hens. pursuant to Art 198 ot Labor Couto, tho tor were te omployaea, Mortoveron account che nature of toi york as nacestay. itt and isp Sable fo rospondents business, complainants could ony be demissed uncer tho Labor Coae ora just cause (ar 297) or authorized cave (Art. 288) becuse they Wore tenured steady per Art 295, Sino thar emia] ves Pot As to entlament to sence charge, the ne lw ‘ues complet ard equsl deta af sige cearges to al employecs, cxcopt managers (RA. 19960) Hence at only shaud the fespondert ge 65% therect to the ompltnats but 100% sno» the ne aw has done say win tha 85%-15% cistrbulen cequvement Under Art. BB of the Labor Cove xi Arnaldo, Presidont of “Bisig” Union in Femwear Company, readies himself to leave exactly at 5:00 pm which vse the end of his normal ait be able ‘Send off his wife who was scheduled to leave for over. Seas, Howover, the Ganeral Manager required him t rendor overtime Work to mest the company’s export quota, Aside begged of, expinining to the General Manager that he had to S20 olf his. wife who was leaving to work abrosa. Tha company. dlomissed Amaldo for neubardination. He filed's cose for legs! dismissal Desi (6%)newer: ‘Arnaldo was ilegaly lisse, Ineubordraton, te gona raed upon bythe com pany, nas fogal me laments. and kas con toting case {the overa tcbaine when ah smpoyee wily vloes» rensonabl recive poraring toh wrk and fia elation fs charted by wronghe perverse, Her, te aby of Aveda ee rouse other wor, respon dischrge of mort ot rei ty can reve ogo pore, Ts eanels fut te elvan of wrost ant every side, Ser Ineficint naw, therfore, the company’s ground cannot xu The rankcendse union stagot a tein he com- any peminos ish cnined ie dotuption tol ‘ets Operations: The supervisors union of te ees Company led money Sim for unpeléaalates the duration of tho stk, arguing that ibe superaats tet report for work we tot buble sage ‘Tho company contend tet h nns sual ai forthe ste wan not the dec consequence of Ico or ana labor pace: hay te company fe labo forthe sles of tw supernee’ Beets (65) = of the sslares laine by te suporvrs fr the following ‘oasons: first, aid not. unawfly ntl subject saree 2 19 lable under Art. 446 cf the Labor Cede sds cond, noswor jstiias ne-pay pursuant tothe “ak y's ay fora fer day's wore rl. ‘As tothe second, the supenisor' inability 1 suppiy poreenal coro was by reason ofthe company's fom porary nebo supply work tham owing tae sxe of {ranean flee ove whi had no corral Bing fu Puwotse @ labor federation, after having won in ' corfcation election held In the company premises, ‘sent letter to respondent company reminding i of is ‘Obligation to recognize the Tocal union. Respondent company replied that though tis willing, the rank-ana file employees had already lost intrest in jlring the local union as they had dissolved it "Puwersa" argued ‘that sinee It won In a cortfication election, k ean ve lly perform fs funetion as a bargaining agost and represent tho rankang-fle. employees despite the Union's aiaroetion, Is the argument of "Puwerse’ tenable? Decide swith reason) Answer: The argument of Pera snot enable though alowed by Arte 268 and 260 ofthe Code to pettion fora cataton lecon on behal of 3 ‘ombor ha chartered, a federation cannot areneta ur tose te ighto calacivelytargin al espocts. a fe flraton fe jot ah agent Ir the eetfeaton seston nt ted bys potion ished resung inthe selection and crt Feation of ts prnapal, Art. 297 of he Labor Code ons vests mle principal ag tho cle and excuse bargainreprosortative tothe exclusion of alse, te ht to rep resent the worker for purposes of elocve barging, Honea, tthe pncipal eitsoles tei in accordance with Are 248 ofthe Labor Code ruling i tho cancer ton of is cerene of togtration then loses is gel personality to demand for tne crating of a plan ew Such casa, is egent cannot demand fo dschalge te func. TRUE oF FALSE, Answer TRUE if the statement is ‘tuo, oF FALSE ifthe statement Is false. Explain your answer in not more than ta (2) eenteness. (5%) (a) _An employment contract prohibting em: ployment in a competing company within ane year from separation is val (b) All confidentat employees are cisqusiiied to unionizo for tho purpose of eolactive bargaining, (o)__A runaway shop is an act constituting unfair labor practi (6)_In the tow on fabor relations, the subestus sionary doctrine prohibits 8 new eolactive bargaining Agent fom ropuetating an existing collective args fing agreement. (e)_ Tho viskorial and enforcement powers of tho DOLE Reglonal Oectar to order and anforee com: Dliance with labor standard laws can be exercised ‘van whan the Inavidual claim excocdsPS,000.0, answer (@) Tue Its valid proved is ited 35 to time, sce, and trade. If tho gansrl flocs oluntatyserviide es: ai of ado, ors Space effect is perpetual rent relocation fo snoter county in ord lo be employed, or prohibit to cook employrient even a ade the ene for not esunly engaged inthsy he honcomoote caso ‘oul be vid (see Daley B. Tu v. Planum Plans Phis Ino, Gi. No. 188512 28 February 2007)Tw Content emsioyess, by force ofthe Principle of Necessary Implemtion ar ike managers who sm axgres {ij diequaled by art 288th Labor Code. Ore posses. es conden ployee stats f 9 party fo a feud lbfenshp wach he assists of raprs To athe n por. fection of ator management infrrnaton provided ne fae acoege to ead infomabon and his asoeso thereto is inheect in his potion (© Fase [Nt business relocatons constute prohibited run ‘away It ony whan tha relssaon saves anirunion pur poses tat Becomes uniwi Hence, the emelovers purpose isto make impcesbia or ocremely dif fo be Else agar non tne reoeaen of shop is an unfair Tabor pracice bacause if wolates ts worker right fo el ‘sigalaston which ncludos ths shade ight ake @ Tne ‘The CBA is intanded io ssbize elatons within the plant Manso, a company tat has a CBA wih workers ls semed organized, Where he incumbent cllechve berger ng apfaurant s isoased tra tne mass resignation of ais members resulting in = substion by another union, ‘ha foray the aw gives the ater ete apportunty to no ulate over the shortoning ef tm period Bf the CBA and Foting slo mero. Belore then, itmust honor thet CBA, ‘The 5,000.00 juscstonalthreshle does nt apply to octfeati cases urer Art 128 ofthe Labor Code. ‘only apts to recovery encos under Art 1280 the God Enumerate at lens four (4) polloies enshrined In Section 3, ActileXil of the Constitution tnt are not Covered by Arle 9 of the Labor Coda an declration lofbasie paticy. 2) Claro, an employee of Juan, was dismissed for allogedly stoating Juan's wstwatch. In the legal sismiseal ease instituted by Claro, the Labor Arbiter, titing Arise & of the Labor Code, ruled In favor of Clarito upon finding Juan's testimony doubsful, On ap- Deal the NURC reversed the Labor Arbiter holaing that IRrcle4 applies only when the doubt involves "imple: mentation and Interpretation” ofthe Labor Code pro. Visions, The NLRC explained thatthe doubt may! not necessary be resolved in favor of labor since this fase involves tho application of the Rules on Eve ence, not the Labor Code, Is the NLRC correct? Roo. sons (3%) Answer 3) The following are te poices ensrined in Sec 3, Are. Xi ofthe Constitution Bi nl eavered by At oi (1) partcpaten: (2) sharecresponsibity (3) preferential use of volumary moses of sting di putes ana (@) Jost share inthe ruts The Libera Interpretation Rule under Art, 4 ofthe requi praberresouten of doubis and emeigutios at‘ng om provisions ofthe Labor Code and ts ORILC but S89 om labor contacs (rt. 1702, New Gil Code) ane fgence in iabor proseecings (Hocheng’ Phitppiage Corp, v, Antonio it. Faralas, FR Ne, 31940h, 56 March 2018) a Richia, @ drvermechanic, was recruited by ‘Supreme Recruiters (88) and Its principal Mideast Recrutment Agency (MRA). to work In Getar for Period of two (2) years. However, soon afl te core fract was approved by POEA, MRA ‘advised Sh forego Richie's deploymant because it hed already hires another Flipine dever-mechani, who Mat eee completad his contract In Gatar. Aggraved, Richie flog with the NLRC a complaint against SR and Wee for damages corresponding to his tho years salsry ‘under the POEA-aporoved contract, SSR ans MRA traversed Richie's complaint, raising the following arguments ‘The Labor Arbiter has ne jurisdiction over the case: (2%) Because Richie was not abl to leave for Qatar, no employer-mployee rolationship was establaned bee ‘een them (hand Even assuming that they are lable, theleHabity Would, at most, be equivalent to Richie's salary top ‘only ic (8) months, not we oars, Oi Rule on the validity of the foregoing arguments (2) Tho Labor Arter hasjursciton Sec. 7, RA. 10022 confers juieicion onthe Labor Atitor over the money isms, inuding damages, ot (OFWs arising For employeramplyes “eatorana, con tack eran (>) _ Actual deployment of sn OFW signals the bit of employacemployeo ralatenen batiean him and his ‘orsign employ (Paul v. Santiago . CF Sharp Crew Managoment ney, G.R. No. 162419, 10 uly 2007) Ne verheless, an undesloyed OF ean iigaa berate Ls or Arter over money claims sisng fm nis befecod ‘ereloyment conta (©). The “leseor amour ro" n See. 7, Ra, 10022 has been dedred es uncensitutonal or vilting the Due Process Clause end tho Equal Protection Clause (Sarreer Overseas Pecement Agency v. Joy Cabile, GR. No, 170199, 5 August 2014, Hence, ME soa SR ae table oe the paymont oF 2 year of elaes, Ww Dioscado, a carpenter, was hired by Building In ustries Corporation (BIC) and assigned to build. @ small house In Alabang. His contact of employment ‘specifically referred to him as a “project employee" a. ‘though it didnot provide any particular date of com. lation of tne project Is the completion of tho house a valid cause for ‘the termination of Diosdado's employment? Ifso, what 2 the due process requiremants that the BIC mst Satiaty2 not why not?)— Yes, the completon ofthe house ie aval ground for terminating Diesdado, Atnough the date of cospioton fot predetermined by slipuinton, kis sil coteminabie (Brt'285, Labor Code) lve process nual becauee the projec employee re being dsmssod based on fault Howover. to lew recite ‘he employer to ropor the competed prjont and subi & lst of al afocted workers the DOLE Rosional Dicer (BI No. 19; chowvise, the projet amploymont outs be In soriaus doubt (areguinat et a. NLRC, wal, Ge No. 120569, 22 January 1996) v 1 Baldo was dismissed from employment for having been absent witout leave (AWOL) for eight 2) ‘months t turned out thatthe reason for hs shone ‘was bis Incarceration after he wee mistaken aa his Neighbor's Killer. Eventually acquited and rowoaree from jl, Baldo retumad to his employer and denen, ed ‘instatemont and full backwages, Baldo on titled to reinstatement and Baokwages? Explaia your answer (3) Domingo, a bus conductor of San Juan Trans portation Company, Intentionally didnot Issue a tekes tora female passenger, kim, his long-time crush, As a resu Domingo was dismissed from employment for fraud or wilful breach of wust, Domingo contests Ns alismissal, claiming that ho f nota eonfidenal empl Yee and, therefore, cannot be dismissed from the ner vice for breach of trast Is Domingo correct? Restore 2%) | | Answer: (2), No, Baldo isnot ented to bot einsiternont and backwages. Whon a demiasa is ground on a0 ap arent abandonmont afore wich tums sft 98 aching fr both elements intr on to clmiseal 2 “good tanh uid unistabio retusa to wor is contacted by 3 Trongtl detention, the employeo must Be ordered ro Therefore, Baldo Is eit to remstatament without bachaages, (©) _ No, Domingo is not covect. His ismisal ie valid because! (7) he osales a postion of vost and con fence Pe raced is enya at gy he tusthas factual Basis hn, ts ct simulated ony. wi Abort, a 40-year old employer, asked his domes: tic helper néay, to give him 9 private massage, When Ingay refused, Albort showed her Article 141 of the Labor Code, which says that ona af the dutis ofa do mestic helper isto minister to the employer's personal Ie Indoy' refusal tanable? Explain (3%) » Distinguish riety, but lesly, «"houschelper” ftom a homeworker” (2) (0) _Indays refusal is tenable, Art, 141 does not contemplate the eran by a omeste helper of indecent Services, Al any altho prowsiens ofthe Labor Gods onlomestehejpers nave Baon suppanis by R.A. 10364, o Ihe Kasombohay Act, Under sui law. 2 kosariboha = fries fo humane ‘reatmant by the members of he househaa ene minster fo (See. (0) _ The two may be dletnguishd from aech oer os flows: (1) A tomas tapor (keseribehay ministers 1 porsonal carr. and convenience of the members, of household, n canvas. a homenarier prcoeeea or fat estes raw materi ro fished prose @) A Gomestc helper (hassmbahay) works at me house ofthe Reusehld served in conrast a horneworker works el ome or about te premises of ashame: and {9) The tens ard const of employment of do mesic heper(kasambahay) ara zoguites by RA, 10961 ieonean aoe of @nomowcrar sr ete by PD 442, * vw Johnny is the duly olacted President and principal union organizer of the Nagkalcisang Mangengawang Manila Restaurant (NMR), legitimate labor organ Zallon. He was unceremoniously dismissed. by th hagemont for speneing virtually 95% of his working hours in union activities. On the same day Johny foe ¢elved the nace of eminaton, he abo" uron Went Management filed an action to declare the strike legal contensing tat (2) The union did not abserve the “coating off period” mandatod by he Labor Cade; (2) ane () _The union went on strike without eomelying wth the stikeswote requirement under the Labor Code a) Rule on the freeing contentions with reasons 1 ley Labor Ar found management gy Slohnny. The decision bocame final Thereafter, tho ‘Nut ted 2 eriminal case against the Manager ot Manila Restaurant. Would the tabor Arbiter’ finding or wy not? (2%) Answer: (a) The company’s contention ie mrtorious, Ob sorvante ofthe appicable cocing-of pou ls mandatary hence, being pat & presorond prose provacre, Re ts purges the rotation ofthe union numa aoe Ungetuputous Union offesrs In act the voting result ie Fequied tobe eubmited tthe NCME in furhersnce of he Same purpose, giving the NOME 7 days to bok ino the ‘egulay afte voting (Are 2704, Labor Code) () _ No, The Labor Arbéer's decison fndng ULP is fer tis nonproueiss, Sues fndng = Daves on su Stanfal evidence; hence, athough fina, cant Hele tion for ULP ana rime must be upon ool buyond reuse able dou. “Criminal and ator proceedings mvoing an mployeo arising rom the same inacion aro separate Sng alsin! om ono anatner ai should not erest any [pment ram one ote oer (St. Luke's Mea! Con ter Ine via, Theresa V. Sanchez, Gi. No. 212054 19 Maren 2045)vi Alexander, a securty guard of Jaguar Security ‘Agency (J8A)_ could not be glven ary assignment be ‘aise no client would accept him. Ha had a face only a mother could! love. Afr sb (8) marie of being. on “Mating” status, Alexander sued JGA for constructive smissel The Labor Ariteruoheld Alexander's claim ff constructive dismissal and ordered JSA to ime Giately reinstate Alexandr. JSA appealed the dostson fe the NLRC, Alexander sought immediate enforesmart Of the reinstatement order wile the appeal was pom fin ISA hires you as lawyer, and secks your advice on the following. (a) Because JSA has no client who would ac- cept Alexandor, can It sll be compalied to reinstate him penaing appes! even if has posted an appeal bond (2), (b) Can te order of reinstatement be imme- lately enforced in tho ebsenee of 3 mation for the Issuance ofa writ of execution? (2) (c)_If tho order of reinstatomant ia bing en- forced, what should JSA do In order to prevent rina: tatemant? (2%). Explain your answers, (@) Yes. Me posteg of an apps bond does no say the execution of retetatemont cor whch, by ee ot Art 228, Labor Codes imedatly nosuory evs ending sone nal 2, S08 te reniatemen was ardor by 9 sppoal, there sno need fora writ of exesuton to oat osnuse Hs immetistaly exanvioy aa 2 polee power ‘moasure. Ons the feintatement rer tly served on the amsioyes thin fon (0) eslandar days to antes te Labor Arter is complance here, Reinstatement canct be pravantad. However an employer is gvan thee options neffstng hi does ‘ot dose sual eeatement tether frmer poston ot in equivalent poston, k may opt fo restore te de ra What s wage estortion? Gan a labor union In voke wage istorton 3 a valkl grourel to go on ‘riko? Explain (2%), . What procedural remedies are open to wor ors who s0ok correction of wage distortion? (2%) answer: (2) A wage distorion i the elimination or serous contraction of the wage gap advaniage enjoyed by ane ‘wage ou over another as fo dastey tha narreny ot po ‘tone and comesponding pay rates adorted by He em Bloyerbacod an abst earaiderations, ve, along a ho ‘bteration ofthe wage gap is by roason of 2 wage lw seg order, merger of companies cr €BA anegotiston |A mage distorlon depuis nor-strkable. The allo tho exclusion ofa thers, ©, inlrunen seput, ins Union sispute, and abor standards cise, ke one a ‘Sg tom a wage alstorion, (b)_Workare who soek corston of @ wage ltr