Ergonomics vs. Enaje Case Digest

ERGONOMICS SYSTEMS PHIL. INC.
VS
ERNESTO ENAJE, ET. AL
GR NO. 195163, DECEMBER 17, 2017
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
• On Oct. 25, 1999, the local union entered into a CBA with petitioner which was
valid for five years or until October, 2004. The local union, which was affiliated
with the Workers Alliance Trade Unions- Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
was not registered independently. Thus, on Nov. 15, 2001, before the CBA
expired, union officers secured the independent registration of the local union
with the DOLE Regional Office;
• Later on, the union officers were charged before the Federation and investigated
for attending and participating in other union’ seminars and activities using union
leave without the knowledge and consent of the Federation and ESPI as well as
initiating and conspiring in the disaffiliation before the freedom period.
• On January 10, 2002, the Federation rendered a decision finding respondents
union officers Enaje, et.al, guilty of disloyalty. They were penalized with
immediate expulsion from the Federation.
• On January 11, 2002, the Federation furnished ESPI with a copy of its
decision against respondents-union officers and recommended the termination
of their employment invoking Sections 2 and 3, Article 2 of the CBA;
ESPI then notified respondent-union officers and gave them 48 hours to explain
except for Nelson, Unte, Rone, and Samson. The rest of the officers refused to
receive the notices. Therefore, on February 20, 2002, respondents- union officers
were issued letters of termination, which again, they refused to receive. On
February 26, 2002, ESPI submitted to the DOLE a list of the dismissed employees.
On the same day, local union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation
and Mediation Board.
• From February 21 to February 23, 2002, the local union staged a series of noise
barrage and “slow down” activities. Meanwhile, on February 22, 2002, 40 union
members refused to submit their Daily Production Reports
• On February 26, 2002, 28 union members abandoned their work and held a
picket line outside of the premises of ESPI
• Then, from February 26 to March 2, 2002, 10 union members did not report to
work without official leave. The union members were required to submit their
explanation why they should not be sanctioned for their refusal to submit DPRs
and abandonment of work. But they either refused to receive the notices or
received them under protest. For refusal to submit their DPRs and for
abandonment, the respondents- union members were issued letters of
termination.
• On January 27, 2003, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice against ESPI, Philip C. Ng and Ma.
Lourminda O. Ng.
LABOR ARBITER’S RULING
• On January 31, 2005, the LA held that the local union was the real
party interest and that the Federation was merely an agent in the
CBA. Thus, the union officers and members who caused the implied
disaffiliation did not violate the union security clause.
• LA further opined that there was no ground for dismissal of the union
members because the refusal to submit the DPRs and failure to report
to work were meant to protest the dismissal of their officers, not to
sever employer-employee relationship. In sum, the LA ordered
respondents to return to work but without the back wages.
NLRC RULING
• On October 31, 2007, the NLRC affirmed the ruling of the LA.
• Further, the NLRC concluded that there was no disloyalty to the union
but only disaffiliation from the Federation which was a mere agent in
the CBA. The cause for the dismissal of the respondents’ dismissal
was not existent.
III. ISSUES
• Whether or not the Federation may invoke the union security clause
in demanding the respondents’ dismissal;
• Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondents complied

with the legal requirements;
• Whether or not the respondents’ dismissal from employment was

valid
IV. RULING
• Only the local union may invoke the union security clause in the CBA.
Before an employer terminates an employee pursuant to the union security clause, it
needs to be determined and proved that: 1.) union security clause is applicable, 2.) union is
requesting the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA, 3.) there is sufficient
evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee of the union.
In this case, the primordial requisite, the union is requesting the enforcement of the
union security provision in the CBA, is clearly lacking. Hence, local unions are considered
principals while the Federation is deemed to be merely the agent.
IV. RULING
• The strike is deemed illegal for failure to take a strike vote and to submit a report
thereon to the NCMB.
The strike is the most powerful weapon of the workers in their struggle with management in the
course of setting their terms and conditions of employment. As such, it either breathes life to or
destroys the union and its members.
For a strike to be valid, it must comply with the following requisites set in Article 278 of the Labor
Code which requires: a. notice of strike should be filed with the NCMB, 30 days before the intended
date thereof; 15 days in case of unfair labor practice, b. a strike vote to be approved by a majority of the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting
called for that purpose, c. notice to be given to the NCMB of the results of the voting at least 7 days
before the intended strike
IV. RULING
• Dismissed respondent-union members are not entitled to back wages.
Dismissed workers are entitled only to reinstatement considering they

did not render work for the employer during the strike. The “fair day’s
wage for a fair day’s work” prevails. Separation pay is made an alternative
relief when certain circumstances are made.
Petition is partially granted. The Court of Appeals decision
is Affirmed with Modification. Petitioners pay each of the
above respondent-union members except for the
respondent-union officers who are solitarily dismissed.
Thank you!

Ergonomics vs. Enaje Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ergonomics vs. Enaje Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ergonomics vs. Enaje Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERGONOMICS SYSTEMS PHIL. INC.

• Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondents complied

• Whether or not the respondents’ dismissal from employment was

Dismissed workers are entitled only to reinstatement considering they

You might also like

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