SUBJECT: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS

I. INTRODUCTION

Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) represents a significant derogation of the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and promote social justice. Under Philippine law, ULP is not merely a violation of the contractual relationship between an employer and an employee; rather, it is a specialized category of offenses that strike at the very heart of the right to self-organization. It involves acts that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to organize, or those that violate the collective bargaining process. This memorandum explores the administrative and legal framework governing ULP committed by employers, emphasizing that such acts are inimical to industrial peace.

II. THEORY

The theoretical underpinning of Unfair Labor Practice is rooted in the “Totality of Conduct Doctrine.” This doctrine posits that the culpability of an employer’s act is not determined by isolated incidents but by the cumulative effect of their actions on the exercise of the right to self-organization. The theory asserts that because the employer-employee relationship is inherently unequal, the law must intervene to prevent the stronger party from using its economic power to dismantle labor unions or frustrate collective bargaining. ULP is characterized as a “civil liability with criminal consequences,” although the administrative aspecthandled by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)focuses on the restorative and corrective measures rather than purely punitive ones.

III. STATUTES

The primary statutory basis for ULP is the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended). Specifically:

1. Article 259 (formerly Art. 248): Enumerates the specific acts of ULP by employers, including interference, restraint, or coercion; yellow-dog contracts; contracting out of services to frustrate unionism; discrimination to encourage or discourage union membership; and violation of the duty to bargain collectively.
2. Article 218 (formerly Art. 211): Declares the state policy to promote free collective bargaining and to enlighten workers of their rights.
3. The 1987 Constitution: Article XIII, Section 3 (The Social Justice and Human Rights provision) guarantees the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and negotiations.

IV. JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court has consistently held that for an act to constitute ULP, there must be a proximate connection between the employer’s action and the exercise of the right to self-organization.

In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. (G.R. No. L-25291), the Court established that the test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights.

In Standard Chartered Bank vs. Confesor (G.R. No. 114974), the Court clarified the concept of “Surface Bargaining,” a form of ULP where an employer goes through the motions of bargaining without a sincere desire to reach an agreement, thereby violating the duty to bargain collectively.

Furthermore, in Tiu vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 123276), the Court emphasized that the dismissal of a union officer is not per se ULP; the complainant must provide substantial evidence that the dismissal was motivated by the employee’s union activities.

V. RULES

The adjudication of ULP cases is governed by the 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Key procedural rules include:

1. Jurisdiction: Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving ULP.
2. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof rests upon the party alleging the ULP. In administrative proceedings, “Substantial Evidence” (that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion) is the required quantum of proof.
3. Prescription: Under Article 305 (formerly Art. 290) of the Labor Code, ULP cases must be filed within one (1) year from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
4. Mandatory Conciliation: All ULP charges are subject to the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) for a 30-day mandatory conciliation-mediation process before being docketed as a formal labor case.

VI. SYNTHESIS

The legal landscape of Unfair Labor Practice in the Philippines functions as a protective shield for the collective rights of the workforce. While an employer retains “Management Prerogative” to discipline employees and direct business operations, this prerogative is not absolute. It is limited by the statutory prohibition against acts that undermine unionism. A finding of ULP requires more than a mere violation of rights; it requires a showing of anti-union animus. Administratively, the remedy for ULP often involves a “Cease and Desist” order, the reinstatement of illegally dismissed employees with full backwages, and in some cases, the payment of moral and exemplary damages to the union.

VII. CONCLUSION

Unfair Labor Practices by employers are grave administrative offenses that destabilize the equilibrium between capital and labor. The Philippine legal system, through the Labor Code and the oversight of the NLRC, ensures that any attempt to stifle the right to self-organization is met with rigorous legal scrutiny. Employers must navigate the complexities of labor relations with the understanding that any action perceived as an affront to the collective bargaining process may be litigated as ULP, carrying significant financial and legal repercussions.

VIII. RELATED JURISPRUDENCE AND LAWS

1. Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (The Labor Code of the Philippines), Articles 258-260.
2. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971.
3. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Confesor, G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004.
4. General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 145567, February 13, 2009.
5. Great Pacific Life Employees Union vs. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 184711, February 11, 2010.
6. The 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission.