Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    144 Manila Mandarin EU V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    maite fernandez
    This case involves an employee, Beloncio, who was expelled from her union and demanded to be dismissed by her employer hotel based on a remark she made during a heated discussion. Beloncio filed a complaint against the hotel and union. The labor arbiter found the union guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered remedies. The NLRC modified the decision. The union argued the NLRC had no jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction, finding the dispute involved interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and whether the dismissal was legal, not purely an intra-union matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    144 Manila Mandarin EU V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    maite fernandez
    34 views2 pages
    This case involves an employee, Beloncio, who was expelled from her union and demanded to be dismissed by her employer hotel based on a remark she made during a heated discussion. Beloncio filed a complaint against the hotel and union. The labor arbiter found the union guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered remedies. The NLRC modified the decision. The union argued the NLRC had no jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction, finding the dispute involved interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and whether the dismissal was legal, not purely an intra-union matter.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    144 Manila Mandarin EU v NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an employee, Beloncio, who was expelled from her union and demanded to be dismissed by her employer hotel based on a remark she made during a heated discussion. Beloncio filed a complaint against the hotel and union. The labor arbiter found the union guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered remedies. The NLRC modified the decision. The union argued the NLRC had no jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction, finding the dispute involved interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and whether the dismissal was legal, not purely an intra-union matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views2 pages

    144 Manila Mandarin EU V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    maite fernandez
    This case involves an employee, Beloncio, who was expelled from her union and demanded to be dismissed by her employer hotel based on a remark she made during a heated discussion. Beloncio filed a complaint against the hotel and union. The labor arbiter found the union guilty of unfair labor practices and ordered remedies. The NLRC modified the decision. The union argued the NLRC had no jurisdiction over an intra-union dispute. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction, finding the dispute involved interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and whether the dismissal was legal, not purely an intra-union matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Manila Mandarin EU v. NLRC G.R. No.

    L-76989
    September 29, 1987 Gutierrez, Jr., J.
    UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ACTS
    SUMMARY:
    Based on a remark made by Beloncio during a heated discussion to a waitress who happened to be the union steward,
    MMEU expelled her from the union on the ground of acts inimical to interest of the union. Thus, pursuant to a union
    security clause, MMEU sought her dismissal. The hotel placed her on forced leave. Beloncio then filed a complaint for
    ULP and ID. LA found the union guilty of ULP. NLRC modified (aside from the liability, there was no mention of what
    the modifications were). MMEU questioned NLRC’s jurisdiction, stating that the matter was purely an intra-union
    dispute. SC affirmed the LA and NLRC, stating that the matter was not purely intra-union, since it involves the
    interpretation of the CBA, as well as the issue of the legality of the dismissal. Where the dispute is not purely intraunion
    but involves an interpretation of the CBA and WoN there was an illegal dismissal, the NLRC has jurisdiction.
    FACTS:
     Melba Beloncio, an asst. head waitress at the hotel’s coffee shop, and who has been employed by the hotel since
    1976, was expelled from the MMEU for acts allegedly inimical to the interests of the union. Based on a union
    security clause1, MMEU demanded Beloncio’s dismissal, to which the hotel acceded by placing her under forced
    leave. 2 days before the effectivity thereof, Beloncio filed a complaint for ULP and illegal dismissal against the
    Hotel and the MMEU before the NLRC.
     LA: MMEU guilty of ULP when it demanded Beloncio’s separation. It was ordered to pay all the wages and
    fringe benefits due to Beloncio from the time she was placed on forced leave until her actual reinstatement, 30k as
    exemplary damages, and 10k as attys fees.
     NLRC: modified. MMEU to pay wages, benefits, plus 10% thereof as attys fees. Hotel ordered to reinstate
    Beloncio and to pay whatever service charges may be due her, to be held in escrow.

    ISSUES: WoN NLRC has jurisdiction.

    PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT/S: NLRC has no jurisdiction. Present controversy involves intra-union conflicts.
    Moreover, it should not be held liable for the payment of Beloncio’s salary, fringe benefits and 10% attys fees.

    HELD:
    1. Yes.
     No GAD in finding that the dispute is not purely intra-union but involves an interpretation of the CBA provision
    and WoN there was illegal dismissal.
     Under the CBA, membership in the union may be lost through expulsion only if there is non-payment of dues or a
    member organizes, joins or forms another labor organization. The charge of disloyalty against Beloncio arose
    from her emotional remark to a waitress who happened to be a union steward, “Wala akong tiwala sa Union
    ninyo”, which was made in the course of a heated discussion re: Beloncio’s efforts to improve the bus boy’s
    attitude towards his work.
     As the LA and SolGen stated, if the only question is the legality of the expulsion, then undoubtedly, the issue is
    cognizable by the BLR. But, since it extended to Beloncio’s dismissal or steps leading thereto, it would
    necessarily subject the acts of the Hotel on the recommended dismissal to scrutiny, i.e. WoN the dismissal
    violates the CBA, which would certainly be ULP. (See art. 250(b) for the specific ULP committed by the union).
    Art. 217 also provides that NLRC has OEJ over ULP cases.

    Other Issues:
     Re: reason for dismissal and lack thereof (only on leave): SC held that findings of fact made by quasi-judicial
    agencies, when based on substantial evidence, should be given finality.

    1
    Section 2(b). “Members of the Union who cease to be such members and/or who fail to maintain their membership in good standing therein by reason of their
    resignation from the Union, and/or by reason of their expulsion from the Union , in accordance with the Constitution and ByLaws of the Union, for nonpayment
    of union dues and other assessment, for organizing, joining or forming another labor organization shall, upon written notice of such cessation of membership or
    failure to maintain membership in the Union and upon written demand to the company by the Union, be dismissed from employment by the Company after complying
    with the requisite due process requirement; xxx”
     Re: liability: Hotel would not have placed Beloncio on forced leave were it not for the union’s insistence to dismiss
    her, with the union even filing for a notice of strike. Moreover, under the CBA, “the Union shall hold the Company
    free and blameless from any and all liabilities that may arise" should the employee question the dismissal, as has
    happened in the CAB.
     SC also stressed that while a closed- shop agreement is a valid form of union security, and is not a restriction of the
    right of freedom of association, union security clauses are also governed by law and principles of justice, fair play,
    and legality. Union security clauses cannot be used by union officials against an employer, much less their own
    members, except with a high sense of responsibility, fairness, prudence, and judiciousness.
     A union member may not be expelled from her union, and consequently from her job, for personal or impetuous
    reasons or for causes foreign to the closedshop agreement and in a manner characterized by arbitrariness and
    whimsicality.
    This is especially true in the case of Beloncio. Union membership does not entitle waiters, janitors, and other workers
    to be sloppy in their work, inattentive to customers, and disrespectful to supervisors. The Union should have
    disciplined its erring and troublesome members instead of causing so much hardship to a member who was only doing
    her work for the best interests of the employer, all its employees, and the general public whom they serve.

    Petition DISMISSED.

    You might also like