Pet: Scoty’s, in Escolta Manila, Manager:Yu Ki L am, Owners:Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao, Helen Yang, employed Res: Nena Micaller as a salesgirl.
1. Nena was was the best seller seller of Scoty’s Scoty’s for three three years (1950-52 (1950-52)) She was earning earning 4.8 4.8 a day and was given given a bonus of P180-200 at the end of 1952, as compared to other employees who only got P60. 2. Oct. 5, 1952: Nena organized a union, which later affiliated with National Labor Union(NLU). 3. NLU sent a petition to Scoty’s containing 10demands; because of this Nena and other employees were subjected to the following: (Interrogation) a. After the NLU’s petition was received by Scoty’s, Scoty’s, Nena was called for questioning, questioning, asking her who the members of the union were. Nena pretended not to know. b. Oct18 Owner/M Owner/Manage anagers rs of Scoty’s Scoty’s went to Nena’s Nena’s house, house, again again questioning questioning her her about her union union memebership. c. Oct19 (morning) Nena was brought by her employers to the house of their counsel Atty Yuseco, where she was again questioned re:her union activities. She was even made to sign a paper of withdrawal from the union. d. Oct19 (evenin (evening) g) Store Store manager manager Yu Ki Lam Lam asked each employee employee whether whether they were were members members of of the union. 4. Oct 31: The union union gave a notice notice of strike. strike. Upon receipt receipt of this this notice notice Scoty’s Scoty’s hired temporar temporary y employees employees equal in number to the old (union members). The new employees were affiliated with another labor union. filed against Nena, 1st Threats=dismissed. 2nd Slander=pay fine but is on 5. A series of criminal cases were filed appeal. 3rd Slander. 6. Nov. 30: Nena was dismissed for (1)“insulting the owner of the store”, Yu Ki Lam. (2)talking to the girls inside the store during office hours. 7. Nena FILED: FILED: Unfair Unfair labor practic practice, e, alleging alleging that she she was dismisse dismissed d because because of her membershi membership p in the union + prior to her separation, her employers were questioning their employees re:membership in the union. 8. Scoty’s Scoty’s ANSWER: ANSWER: Denied charges charges.. Nena was allegedly allegedly dismiss dismissed ed because because of her misconduct misconduct and serious serious disrespect to management so much so that several criminal complaint were filed against her. 9. CIR: After due hearin hearing, g, held held Scoty’s Scoty’s Manage Managerr and owners owners liable. liable. Issue: w/n Petitioners are guilty of Unfair Labor practice in interrogating their employees an dismissing Nena. Decision: YES guilty, but penal fine is deleted since that is not within the jurisdiction of the CIR. 1. That Scoty’s Scoty’s subjecte subjected d their employees employees to a series series of questionin questioning g re:members re:membership hip in the union union is a question question of fact which the SC cannot look into. a. CIR made a careful analysis of the evidence and found these facts to be true. Which in contemplation of the law are deemed acts of ULP under RA875 §4 (a)(4). 2. Since law on on ULP is recent recent in the Phil, Phil, SC used a US case case which which in their opinion opinion is on all all fours with this this case. case. NLRB v. Harris-Woodson Co.: a. In that case case there there was also also abundant abundant evidenc evidence e of questionin questioning g of employees employees as as to membersh membership ip in the union. b. There was also anti-un anti-union ion expres expressions sions by the co’s superinten superintendent. dent. c. And that as held in NLRB v. Norfolf-Southern Bus Co: Co: Questioning of employees concerning
union membership and activities and disparaging remarks by supervisory employees made in such away as to hamper the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees, have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the Act. d. There There a certain certain Edna Edler Edler was was also discharg discharged ed at the time time when questio question n of union representation was becoming acute. e. Edna Edler Edler was dismissed dismissed despit despite e also being a competen competentt and efficient efficient employe employee e with a long record of service. She was also dismissed merely to pre-empt the labor union activities. 3.
However However the CIR CIR is not justifie justified d in imposing imposing penal penal sanctions sanctions on the petition petitioners. ers. a. CIR law (RA 875) 875) §25 provides provides:: PenaltiesPenalties- Any Any person person who violate violatess the provision provisionss of §3 this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than P100/imprisonment of 1mo-1yr or both… in the discretion of the Court. b. §25 does not not specifiy specifiy as to to what Court Court it relates relates to. to. (whether (whether CIR CIR or regular regular courts) courts)
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
c.
SC after mature mature delibera deliberation tion concludes concludes that §25 refers refers to to regular regular courts, courts, for to hold hold it to mean mean as the CIR would be violative of the safeguards guaranteed by our consti to the accused since: i. Proc Proced edur ure e laid laid down down by law law for for CIR CIR in in dea deali ling ng with with ULP ULP cas cases es nega negate tess the the guar guaran ante tee e ii. ii. It prov provid ides es that that “th “the e rul rules es of evi evide denc nce e pre preva vail ilin ing g in the the ((re regu gula lar) r) cou court rtss can canno nott be controlling iii. iii. CIR CIR in in hea heari ring ng sha shall ll use use ever every y reas reason onab able le mea means ns to asc ascer erta tain in fac facts ts spee speedi dily ly and and objectively without regards to technicalities of law of procedure. d. As compared compared to the the Court of of Agrarian Agrarian Reform Reform (CAR) (CAR) which which can impose impose penal penal sanctions sanctions,, CIR cannot. i. CAR’ CAR’ss law law cont contai ains ns pena penall sanc sancti tion onss AND AND a pro proce cedu dure re to be be foll follow owed ed in cas cases es invo involv lvin ing g these penal sanctions: “§10 Criminal proceedings should be prosecuted as in ordinary cases” CIR’s law on the other hand only contains the provision for penal sanctions. It is silent on ii. the procedure to be followed in the prosecution of the offense. 4. Power to to impose penaltie penaltiess under §25 §25 is lodged in the the ordinary ordinary courts not not CIR, notwiths notwithstandin tanding g definition definition of “Court” in §2(a) of the act. WHEREFORE decision of CIR MODIFIED, penal sanction in the form of P100 fine is deleted. Civil liab is affirmed. -Czarina Dee