Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

G.R. No.

96189 July 14, 1992

fment of Labor and

Test applied: community or mutuality of

, working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining.

In the case at bar, the employees can easily be categorized into two general classes:
Firstnon-academicjanitors Employment, and THE ALL U.P. WORKERS' UNION,
represented by its President, Rosario del Rosario, respondent.

, mechanics, plumbers; and

Secondacademicfull interests test.

BASIC TEST: A unit, to be appropriate, must affect a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in Division and the Logging Division. Their functions mesh
with one another. One group needs the other in the same way that the company needs
them both. There may be differences of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of
the work and duties as well as in the compensation and working conditions of the
academic and non-academic personnel dictate the separation of these two categories
of employees for wages, hours. Certainly, there is a mutuality of interest among the
employees of the Sawmill

NAFLU vs. Mainit lumber, 192 SCRA 598

ef test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is whether or not it is
fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of
their collective as to the nature of their individual assignments, but the distinctions
are not enough to warrant the formation of a separate bargaining unit



G.R. No. L-22970, June 9, 1969


Law Applicable:
In this case, no law was applied since the issue involved has something to do with the
correctness of the examiners report on the basis of a court order.

The dispute between the union and the management should have first been subjected
to the remedies provided for in the Constitution which promotes the preferential use
of voluntary modes of settling dispute instead of going directly to the courts. If they
have availed first of various modes of voluntary settlement, they would have avoided
the gruesome and long process of litigation. The case involved several issues but when
it reached the Supreme Court, the only issue left was the correctness of the reported
money value which they could have determined earlier if they resorted to an
amicable settlement to meet the demands of each other.

In this case SURICON, through employees duly designated, actively cooperated with
the CIR and its Chief Examiner in the examination of its own books and in the
computation of the money value of the questioned awards. As a matter of fact, its
only objection against the reports themselves was that they were not correctly based,
meaning that instead of the examination and computation being based on the
testimony of SURICON's general superintendent, they were based on the statement
made in open court by SURICON's counsel subsequent to the giving of such testimony.
At the very least, therefore, it seems clear that SURICON must be deemed barred
from now saying that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the demands of
PLASLU. The Court ruled that neither the CIR nor its Chief Examiner nor the latter's
assistant committed any error in relation to this particular issue under consideration.

Knitjoy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Ferrera-Calleja, 214 SCRA 174


one company-one union policy

The suggested bias of the Labor Code in favor of the one company-one union policy,
anchored on the greater mutual benefits which the parties could derive, especially in
the case of employees whose bargaining strength could undeniably be enhanced by
their unity and solidarity but diminished by their disunity, division and dissension, is
not without exceptions.

The usual exception, of course, is where the employer unit has to give way to the
other units like the craft unit, plant unit, or a subdivision thereof; the recognition of
these exceptions takes into accountant the policy to assure employees of the fullest
freedom in exercising their rights. Otherwise stated, the one company-one union
policy must yield to the right of the employees to form unions or associations for
purposes not contrary to law, to self-organization and to enter into collective
bargaining negotiations, among others, which the Constitution guarantees