Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL v. GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
A painstaking review of case law renders obtuse the Union's claim for separation pay. In a slew of cases, this Court refrained from awarding separation pay or financial assistance to union officers and members who were separated from service due to their participation in or commission of illegal acts during strikes. In the recent case of Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA),[74] this Court upheld the dismissal of union officers who participated and openly defied the return-to-work order issued by the DOLE Secretary. No separation pay or financial assistance was granted. In Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. Court of Appeals,[75] this Court declared that the union officers who participated in and the union members who committed illegal acts during the illegal strike have lost their employment status. In this case, the strike was held illegal because it violated agreements providing for arbitration. Again, there was no award of separation pay nor financial assistance. In Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union,[76] the strike was declared illegal because the means employed was illegal. We upheld the validity of dismissing union members who committed illegal acts during the strike, but again, without awarding separation pay or financial assistance to the erring employees. In Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines,[77] this Court upheld the dismissal of union officers who participated in an illegal strike sans any award of separation pay. Earlier, in Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries,[78] we affirmed the dismissal of the Union's officers who participated in an illegal strike without awarding separation pay, despite the NLRC's declaration urging the company to give financial assistance to the dismissed employees.[79] In Interphil Laboratories Union-FFW, et al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc.,[80] this Court affirmed the dismissal of the union officers who led the concerted action in refusing to render overtime work and causing "work slowdowns." However, no separation pay or financial assistance was allowed. In CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. NLRC,[81] this Court affirmed the dismissal of union officers who participated in the strike and the union members who committed illegal acts while on strike, without awarding them separation pay or financial assistance. In 1996, in Allied Banking Corporation v. NLRC,[82] this Court affirmed the dismissal of Union officers and members, who staged a strike despite the DOLE Secretary's issuance of a return to work order but did not award separation pay. In the earlier but more relevant case of Chua v. NLRC,[83] this Court deleted the NLRC's award of separation benefits to an employee who participated in an unlawful and violent strike, which strike resulted in multiple deaths and extensive property damage. In Chua, we viewed the infractions committed by the union officers and members as a serious misconduct which resulted in the deletion of the award of separation pay in conformance to the ruling in PLDT. Based on existing jurisprudence, the award of separation pay to the Union officials and members in the instant petitions cannot be sustained.
	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
In the case at bar, the Union staged the strike on the same day that it filed its second notice of strike. The Union violated the seven-day strike ban. This requirement should be observed to give the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. [25]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
More to the point, the Court has consistently ruled in a long line of cases spanning several decades that once the SOLE assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike or lockout. Defiance of the assumption order or a return-to work order by a striking employee, whether a union officer or a member, is an illegal act and, therefore, a valid ground for loss of employment status.[39]
	GR NO. 154591 2007-03-05	MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
MHEA claims that the Court should consider as a mitigating circumstance the fact that they held the strike three months after filing their notice of strike. Such detail is irrelevant. What is crucial is that they were apprised of the assumption order of the SOLE wherein they were enjoined from carrying out a strike. They were again reminded to refrain from conducting a strike during the mandatory conference on 8 February 2000. Pending the proceedings for compulsory arbitration and for no apparent reason, they staged the strike two days later and refused to obey the return-to-work order issued on 11 February 2000. In the case of Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN),[47] the Court cautioned against the unreasonable and indiscriminate exercise of the right to strike:[T]he 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 hotheads, 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. x x x.
	GR NO. 169299 2006-06-16	EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS. v. MARIA CHARINA DIAMSE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT DIAMSE WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE JUSTIFY HER DISMISSAL BASED ON LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE.[12] As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. However, this rule admits of exceptions,[13] such as in this case where the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals vary from the NLRC's findings. After a review of the entire records of the case, we uphold the findings of the Court of Appeals that Diamse was illegally dismissed.