Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SANTA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 170830 2010-08-11	PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION BRION, J.
To strike is to withhold or to stop work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.[40] The work stoppage may be accompanied by picketing by the striking employees outside of the company compound. While a strike focuses on stoppage of work, picketing focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its incidents to inform the public of what is happening in the company struck against. A picket simply means to march to and from the employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute.[41] It is a strike activity separate and different from the actual stoppage of work.
	GR No. 170830 2010-08-11	PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION BRION, J.
In the present case, respondents Erlinda Vazquez, Ricardo Sacristan, Leonida Catalan, Maximo Pedro, Nathaniela Dimaculangan, Rodolfo Mojico, Romeo Caramanza, Reynaldo Ganitano, Alberto Basconcillo, and Ramon Falcis stand to be dismissed as participating union officers, pursuant to Article 264(a), paragraph 3, of the Labor Code. This provision imposes the penalty of dismissal on "any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike." The law grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.[74]
	GR No. 174316 2009-06-23	TEODORICO S. MIRANDA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PUNO, C.J.
The premise that the union Shop Steward is a position within the respondent company provides a faulty foundation to an already convoluted case. A cursory look at the responsibilities of a shop steward leads to the conclusion that it is a position within the union, and not within the company. A shop steward is appointed by the union in a shop, department, or plant and serves as representative of the union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of employees with the supervisor of the employer.[55] He is the representative of the union members in a building or other workplace.[56] Black's Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as a union official elected to represent members in a plant or particular department. His duties include collection of dues, recruitment of new members and initial negotiations for the settlement of grievances.[57]
	GR No. 174316 2009-06-23	TEODORICO S. MIRANDA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PUNO, C.J.
In the case of Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.,[59] Section 501(a) [60] and (b)[61] and Section 3(q)[62] of the Landrum Griffin Act of 1959 were used as the bases to conclude that the Shop Steward is an officer of the union. These provisions confirm that the Shop Steward occupies a position of trust within the union. It may be an elective official within the union or key administrative personnel, and it is considered to be within the same class as union officers, agents and representatives. We have ruled in the case of Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union that: x x x, a shop steward is appointed by the Union in a shop, department, or plant serves as representative of the Union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of employees with the supervisor of the employer. He is the representative of the Union members in a building or other workplace. Black's Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as a union official who represents members in a particular department. His duties include the conduct of initial negotiations for settlement of grievances. He is to help other members when they have concerns with the employer or other work-related issues. He is the first person that workers turn to for assistance or information. If someone has a problem at work, the steward will help them sort it out or, if necessary, help them file a complaint. In the performance of his duties, he has to take cognizance of and resolve, in the first instance, the grievances of the members of the Union. He is empowered to decide for himself whether the grievance or complaint of a member of the petitioner Union is valid, and if valid, to resolve the same with the supervisor failing which, the matter would be elevated to the Grievance Committee.
	GR No. 174316 2009-06-23	TEODORICO S. MIRANDA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PUNO, C.J.
It is quite clear that the jurisdiction of shop stewards and the supervisors includes the determination of the issues arising from the interpretation or even implementation of a provision of the CBA, or from any order or memorandum, circular or assignments issued by the appropriate authority in the establishment. In fine, they are part and parcel of the continuous process of grievance resolution designed to preserve and maintain peace among the employees and their employer. They occupy positions of trust and laden with awesome responsibilities.[63]
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
Strikes exert disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society, not to mention the economic well-being of the State. It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of their labors. Hence, the decision to wield the weapon of strike must therefore rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism, unswayed by the tempers and tantrums of a few, and firmly focused on the legitimate interest of the union which should not however be antithetical to the public welfare. In every strike staged by a union, the general peace and progress of society and public welfare are involved.[67]
	GR No. 164403 2008-03-04	COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. PABLO NAGRAMA REYES, R.T., J.
A review of the facts discloses that these twin elements are not present here. First, respondent's absence was justified under the circumstances. He was a shop steward, which recent jurisprudence qualifies as a union officer.[75] As an officer, he had a valid reason to attend the hearing of his union brothers. He also asked for and was given permission as can be seen from the minutes of his hearing.[76] Petitioner does not contest this fact. Permission negates any possibility of respondent abandoning his job.
	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
In Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals, it was explained that "[t]he fact that the conventional term 'strike' was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation and not its appearance, will be deemed controlling."[36] The term "strike" has been elucidated to encompass not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy, or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.[37]