The concept of ‘Unfair Labor Practice’ (ULP) serves as the cornerstone of Philippine labor relations, designed to equalize the inherent imbalance of power between labor and capital. Rooted in the constitutional mandates for social justice and the protection of workers’ rights, the ULP framework proscribes specific acts by either employers or labor organizations that interfere with the employees’ statutory right to self-organization, collective bargaining, and concerted activities. This memo provides an exhaustive analysis of the concept, tracing its jurisprudential foundations, enumerating its statutory iterations, and elucidating the procedural and substantive remedies available under Philippine law.
The 1987 Constitution establishes the bedrock for ULP prohibitions. Article II, Section 18 declares the State’s policy to affirm labor as a primary social economic force, while Article III, Section 8 guarantees the right to form unions, associations, or societies. Most critically, Article XIII, Section 3 mandates the State to afford full protection to labor, promote shared responsibility and cooperation between employers and workers, and regulate the relations between them. This constitutional edifice is operationalized through the Police Power of the State, which legitimizes state intervention in private contractual relations to protect the public interest, welfare, and morals of the working class. The ULP provisions are a direct exercise of this power, preventing acts that frustrate the state policy of fostering industrial peace based on social justice.
The concept was formally codified in the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) and has evolved through subsequent labor codes. Jurisprudence has refined its application, establishing key doctrines:
A. The Doctrine of Non-Abrogation of Rights: The enumeration of ULPs in the Labor Code does not abrogate or diminish other rights of workers under existing laws, contracts, or general principles of law. The list is not exhaustive, and acts violative of constitutional rights may be cognizable under other legal rubrics.
B. The Doctrine of Privileged Communication: Statements made in the course of a labor dispute, including allegations of ULPs, are generally considered privileged communication and are not actionable as defamation, provided they are made in good faith and without malice.
C. The Causal Connection Doctrine: For an employer’s act to be considered a ULP under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code (interference with the right to self-organization), there must be a showing of a causal connection between the employee’s union activity and the employer’s discriminatory act. Mere membership in a union is insufficient; it must be shown that the union activity was a motivating factor behind the employer’s action.
D. The Quantum of Proof: In ULP cases, substantial evidence is the required quantum of proof. This is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence but more than a mere scintilla.
Article 248 enumerates specific acts constituting ULPs when committed by employers. These can be categorized thematically:
A. Interference and Restraint: Acts that impede the constitutional right to self-organization. This includes interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization (Art. 248(a)). The Yellow Dog Contract Doctrine is subsumed here, referring to contracts where an employee agrees not to join a union as a condition of employment, which is per se invalid.
B. Domination and Support: Contracting out services to discourage union membership, or initiating, dominating, assisting, or otherwise interfering in the formation or administration of any labor organization, including giving financial or other support to it (Art. 248(b) & (c)).
C. Discrimination: Discriminating in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. This includes discrimination against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony in a ULP case (Art. 248(d) & (e)).
D. Retaliation and Retrenchment in Bad Faith: Discharging, dismissing, or otherwise prejudicing an employee for union membership or legitimate union activities. Retrenchment to circumvent union membership, or the commission of mass resignation of union officers under duress, are specifically included (Art. 248(f), (g), & (h)).
E. Violation of Duty to Bargain: Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees (Art. 248(i)). This encompasses surface bargaining (going through the motions without intent to reach an agreement), regressive bargaining, and dilatory tactics.
F. Other Prohibited Acts: These include paying negotiation or attorney’s fees from union funds, violating a collective bargaining agreement, and using contract labor to perform functions currently performed by unionized employees in order to interfere with or restrain the exercise of their right to self-organization (Art. 248(j), (k), (l), & (m)).
Labor organizations and their agents are likewise prohibited from engaging in ULPs, ensuring responsibility and good faith in collective action:
A. Restraint and Coercion: Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, or employers in their right to select representatives for collective bargaining (Art. 249(a) & (b)).
B. Causing Discrimination: Causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including inducing him to commit a ULP (Art. 249(c)).
C. Refusal to Bargain: Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the employer (Art. 249(d)).
D. Featherbedding and Abuse of Rights: Asking for negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of a settlement, and violating the CBA (Art. 249(e) & (f)). Engaging in illegal strikes, such as those declared without the requisite strike vote or notice, or based on non-strikeable issues like inter-union disputes, also constitutes a ULP.
Not every violation of labor standards (e.g., non-payment of wages, overtime) is a ULP. The distinguishing element is the nexus to collective rights. A ULP is an act that violates the workers’ civil liberties, particularly their right to self-organization and collective bargaining. An illegal act becomes a ULP only if it is committed to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights. For instance, dismissal may be illegal due to lack of due process, but it becomes a ULP if the cause of dismissal is the employee’s union membership or activity.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiters have exclusive original jurisdiction over ULP cases. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the Secretary, may also assume jurisdiction over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. All ULP cases fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, whose decisions are appealable to the NLRC.
The prescriptive period for ULP cases is one (1) year from the date of the alleged act (Article 290, Labor Code). This is counted from the date of the commission of the ULP, not from the date of its discovery. The Doctrine of Continuing Offense may apply in cases where the ULP constitutes a continuing wrong, in which case the prescriptive period begins from the cessation of the unlawful act.
The general rule is that the party alleging the commission of a ULP has the burden of proving it by substantial evidence. In dismissal cases based on alleged union activity, the Shifting Burden of Evidence applies. First, the employee must present substantial evidence that the dismissal was due to union activity. Once this prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a lawful and valid cause. Failure of the employer to discharge this burden leads to a finding of ULP.
The ULP framework interacts with and is supplemented by other labor laws:
* The Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended): The primary source, particularly Book V.
* The Constitution (1987), Article III (Bill of Rights) and Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights): Provides the fundamental rights being protected.
* The Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386): Provisions on human relations (Articles 19-21) and damages may apply supplementarily.
* The Revised Penal Code: Acts constituting ULPs may, in certain circumstances, also constitute criminal offenses (e.g., coercion, threats).
* Special Laws: Such as Republic Act No. 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), which strengthened ULP provisions and procedural rules.
* International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions: Notably Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise) and Convention No. 98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining), which inform the Philippine legal framework.
A successful complainant in a ULP case is entitled to comprehensive reliefs designed to make the aggrieved party whole and deter future violations:
In conclusion, the concept of Unfair Labor Practice is a dynamic legal instrument essential to the Philippine policy of industrial peace through social justice. It provides a specific cause of action and potent remedies against conduct that undermines the core collective rights of workers and the integrity of the collective bargaining process. Its effective application requires a nuanced understanding of the statutory definitions, the governing doctrines, and the intricate procedural rules that animate this critical area of labor law.
