2. By Employers

Acceptance of Facilities

In order that the cost of facilities furnished by the employer may be charged against an employee, the employee’s acceptance of such facilities must be voluntary.

ULP BY EMPLOYERS

The Code enumerates the acts or categories of acts considered as ULP. The enumeration does not mean an exhaustive listing of ULP incidents. (HSBC Employees Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125038, 1997)

Rundown of Acts Constituting Unfair Labor Practice of Employers (YIP-C2-D2-V2) (Art. 259)

• Interference
• Yellow dog condition
• Contracting out
• Company unionism
• Discrimination for or against union membership
• Discrimination because of testimony
• Violation of duty to bargain
• Paid negotiation
• Violation of CBA

Threatening Employees

Interference with employee organizational rights were found where the superintendent of the employer threatened the employees with cutting their pay, increasing rent of the company houses, or closing the plant if they supported the union and where the employer encouraged the employees to sign a petition repudiating the union. [No Citation]

Discouraging Membership in a Labor Organization

Refusal over a period of years to give salary adjustments according to the improved salary scales in the collective bargaining agreements. (Benguet Consolidated v. BCI Employees and Workers Union, G.R. No. L-25471, 1968)

Dismissal of an old employee allegedly for inefficiency, on account of her having joined a union and engaging in union activities. (East Asiatic Co v. CIR, G.R. No. L-17037, 1966)

Dismissal of teachers for fear by the school that there would be strike the following semester. (Rizal Memorial Colleges Faculty Union v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 59012-13, 1989)

A company’s capital reduction efforts, to camouflage the fact that it has been making profits to justify the mass lay-off of its employees especially union members. (Madrigal & Company Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48237, 1987)

Lockout or Closure Amounting to ULP

A lockout, actual or threatened, as a means of dissuading the employees from exercising their rights under the Act is clearly an unfair labor practice. To hold an employer who actually or who threatens to lock out his employees guilty of a violation of this Act, the evidence must establish that the purpose thereof was to interfere with the employee’s exercise of their rights (Azucena Vols. II-A and II-B, 9th ed., 2016, p. 323).

SIXTH ULP: DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY (ART. 259 [F])

To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code.

Note: This is the only ULP not directly related to the right to self – organization. The testimony or proceedings might involve wages, employee’s benefits disciplinary rules, or organizational rights, or anything covered by the Labor Code. What is chargeable as ULP is the employer’s retaliatory act regardless of the subject of the employee’s complaint or testimony.

Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to workers' right to self-organization with the sole exception of Art. [259 (f)]. (Philcom Employees Union v. Philippine Global Communication, G.R. 126717, 1999).

Failure to reply - ULP

Likewise, in Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran (G.R. No. 141471, 2000), petitioner-school was declared to have acted in bad faith because of its failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union. The school merely offered a feeble excuse that its Board of Trustees had not yet convened to discuss the matter.

A local chapter acquires the rights of a legitimate labor organization upon issuance of a charter certificate by a duly registered federation or national union, subject to the applicable requirements under the Labor Code provisions on chartering local chapters, as amended by RA 9481. An employer may contest whether a purported chapter has acquired that status, but may not refuse to negotiate solely because the chapter lacks independent registration. In Abaria, the question was whether the chapter had acquired legitimate status. (Abaria, et al v. Metro Cebu Community Hospital, G.R. No. 154113, 2011)

An employer is guilty of ULP when he directly discharges his employees to forestall a demand for collective bargaining, and also indirectly causes that discharge by selling to a company that he knows is unwilling to accept his employees. (Fernando v. Angat Labor Union, G.R. No. L-17896, 1962)

EIGHTH ULP: PAID NEGOTIATION (ART. 259 [H])

To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute

Note: Self – organization and collective bargaining are treasured rights of the workers. The law zealously shields them from corruption. It is a punishable act of ULP for the employer to pay the union or any of its officers or agents any negotiation fee or attorney’s fees as part of the settlement in collective bargaining or any labor dispute. To do so is not only unlawful. It is ethically reprehensible. Correspondingly, asking for or accepting such payments is a union unfair labor practice under Art. 260. (Azucena Vols. IIA and II-B, 9th ed., 2016, p. 362).

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS v. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

NOTE: Provided that only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organization who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.