This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court, in Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v. Ramos[29] clearly stated the general rule: the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union's demand in accordance with a union security agreement does not constitute unfair labor practice. An employer is not considered guilty of unfair labor practice if it merely complied in good faith with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.[30] In the case at bar, there is even less possibility of sustaining a finding of guilt for unfair labor practice where respondent did not dismiss the 36 employees, despite the insistence of HIMPHLU, the sole bargaining agent for the rank and file employees of the Hotel, on the basis of the union security clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The only act attributed to the respondent is its issuance of the Notices which, contrary to being an unfair labor practice, even afforded the employees involved a chance to be heard. | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It has been the jurisprudential rule for quite sometime that the employer is not considered guilty of unfair labor practice if it merely complied in good faith with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the CBA.[8] Hence, the company may not be ordered to grant either backwages or financial assistance in the form of separation pay as a form of penalty.[9] | |||||