LABOR LAW MOCKBAR CYCLE 2
1.Rosa was granted vacation leave by her employer to spend three weeks in Africa
with her family. Prior to her departure, the General Manager of the company
requested her to visit the plant of a client of the company in Zimbabwe in order to
derive best manufacturing practices useful to the company. She accepted the
request because the errand would be important to the company and Zimbabwe was
anyway in her itinerary. It appears that she contracted a serious disease during the
trip. Upon her return, she filed a claim for compensation, insisting that she had
contracted the disease while serving the interest of her employer. Under the Labor
Code, the sickness or death of an employee, to be compensable, must have resulted
from an illness either definitely accepted as an occupational disease by the
Employees' Compensation Commission, or caused by employment subject to proof
that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. Is the
serious disease Rosa contracted during her trip to Africa compensable? Explain
your answer. (2.5%)
2. Juan Sipay was elected councilor of the municipality of San Felipe. On the
second year of his term, he left his legitimate wife. Josefa Asuwa, and their three
minor, unmarried and unemployed children and lived with a common-law wife,
Maria Makupad, with whom he had two minor, unmarried and unemployed
children. Immediately after he completed his term. Juan was appointed cashier in
the office of the municipal treasurer of San Felipe. He was dishonorably
discharged from the service upon being convicted of malversation of public funds.
A year later, he died. Who are entitled to the GSIS survivorship benefits?
3.Delfin and Luisito are licensed drivers of public utility jeepneys owned by
Moises Capili. When Capili assumed ownership and operation of the jeepneys, the
drivers were required to sign individual contracts of lease of the jeepney. The
drivers gathered the impression that signing the contract was a condition precedent
before they could continue driving. The drivers stopped plying their assigned
routes and a week later filed with the LA a complaint for illegal dismissal praying
not for reinstatement but for separation pay. Are the respondents entitled to
separation pay?
4.Company C, a toy manufacturer, decided to ban the use of cell phones in the
factory premises. In the pertinent Memorandum, management explained that too
much texting and phone-calling by employees disrupted company operations. Two
employees-members of Union X were terminated from employment due to
violation of the memorandum-policy. The union countered with a prohibitory
injunction case (with prayer for the issuance of a temporary- restraining order)
Filed with the Regional Trial Court, challenging the validity and constitutionality
of the cell phone ban. The company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case
should be referred to the grievance machinery pursuant to an existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement with Union X, and eventually to Voluntary Arbitration. Is
the company correct? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
5.Don Don is hired as a contractual employee of CALLHELP, a call center. His
contract is expressly for a term of 4 months. Don Don is hired for 3 straight
contracts of 4 months each but at 2-week intervals between contracts. After the
third contract ended, Don Don is told that he will no longer be given another
contract because of "poor performance." Don Don files a suit for "regularization"
and for illegal dismissal, claiming that he is a regular employee of CALLHELP
and that he was dismissed without cause. You are the Labor Arbiter. How would
you decide the case? (2015 Bar Question)
6.Danilo Flores applied for the position of driver in the motorpool of Gold
Company, a multinational corporation. Danilo was informed that he would
frequently be working overtime as he would have to drive for the company's
executives even beyond the ordinary eight-hour work day. He was provided with a
contract of employment wherein he would be paid a monthly rate equivalent to 35
times his daily wage, regular sick and vacation leaves. 5 day-leave with pay every
month and time off with pay when the company’s executives using the cars do not
need Danilo’s service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime. Are the
above provisions of the contract of employment in conformity with, or violative of,
the law?
7.Pedro Sisid is a seaman who was employed in 1990 by Kuhol Ocean Transport.
In May 1993, he was discharged and correspondingly paid vacation pay, terminal
pay and overtime pay for the number of hours he actually rendered service in
excess of his eight (8) working hours a day. Pedro Sisid, however, is dissatisfied
with his overtime pay contending that he is on board the vessel 24 hours a day. or
even beyond his eight (8) working hours which circumstance renders him on call
whenever his service is needed. Therefore, he insists that he be paid 16 hours a day
by way of overtime. Is the contention of seaman Pedro Sisid tenable? Why?
8.As a tireman in a gasoline station, open twenty four (24) hours a day 'with only
five (5) employees, Goma worked from 10:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. of the
following day. He claims he is entitled to night shift differential. Is he correct?
Explain briefly. (3%)
9.During the open forum following your lecture before members of various unions
affiliated with a labor federation, you were asked the following questions: May a
rank-and-file employee, who is not a member of the union representing his
bargaining unit, avail of the wage increases which the union negotiated for its
members? (4%).
10.The Manila Industrial Corp. has fifty (50) contract workers supplied by the
National Employment Agency. They joined the Novato Labor Union, the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file workers in the company. In
turn, the union demanded that the company consider the fifty new union members
as regular employees accordance with the Labor Code. When the company refused
to make their employment regular, the union, after complying with the
requirements, staged a strike. The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed
Jurisdiction of the case. Assuming that there is no employer-employee relationship
between the company and the fifty contract workers, is there a labor dispute
between them that properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment?
11: In a labor dispute, the Secretary of Labor issued an "Assumption Order". Give
the legal implications of such an order.
12.Several employees and members of Union A were terminated by Western
Phone Co. on the ground of redundancy. After complying with the necessary
requirements, the Union staged a strike and picketed the premises of the company.
The management then filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment
to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. Without the benefit of a hearing, the
Secretary issued an Order to assume jurisdiction and for the parties to revert to the
status quo ante litem.
Under the same set of facts the Secretary instead issued an Order directing all
striking workers to return to work within 24 hours, except those who were
terminated due to redundancy. Was the Order legal? Explain.
13.Several employees and members of Union A were terminated by Western
Phone Co. on the ground of redundancy. After complying with the necessary
requirements, the Union staged a strike and picketed the premises of the company.
The management then filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment
to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. Without the benefit of a hearing, the
Secretary issued an Order to assume jurisdiction and for the parties to revert to the
status quo ante litem. (2010 Bar Question) A. Was the order to assume jurisdiction
legal? Explain.
14.When the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations between
COMPUTER WORKERS UNION and COMPUTER TECH CORPORATION
resulted in a deadlock, both parties agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary
arbitration stipulating, among other things, that the decision of the Voluntary
Arbitrator shall be “final unappealable and executory" conformable with the
provisions of Art. 262 of the Labor Code. The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered his
decision or award worded as follows: “COMPUTER TECH CORP. to award a sum
total package benefits to COMPUTER WORKERS UNION in the amount of
TWENTY MILLION (P20.000.000.00) PESOS for the three-year period of the
CBA, the distribution and availment per year to be suggested by the UNION
subject to the approval of the CORPORATION, seeing to it that the decretal
benefits shall first be satisfied above all others. The UNION filed a “Motion for
Clarification" claiming that the package benefit award of P20-million does not
cover the decretal benefits granted by Wage Order No. 2 which was issued on the
same day when the arbitration award was made. The Arbitrator issued an order
which modified the original award of P20-million and sought to impose upon the
CORPORATION an additional burden of decretal benefits given by Wage Order
No. 2. The CORPORATION assailed the Arbitrator’s modification of the original
award claiming that the modification of the original award was null and void and
without or in excess of the Arbitrator’s authority and brought the issue to the
Supreme Court by petition for certiorari
1) Are decisions or awards of the Voluntary Arbitrators appealable? Discuss.
2) Has the Voluntary Arbitrator the authority to modify his original award under
the above-narrated facts. Discuss.
15.Philippine Electric Company is engaged in electric power generation and
distribution. It is a unionized company with Kilusang Makatao as the union
representing its rank-and-file employees. During the negotiations for their expired
collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the parties duly served their proposals and
counter-proposals on one another. The parties, however, failed to discuss the
merits of their proposals and counter-proposals in any formal negotiation meeting
because their talks already bogged down on the negotiation ground rules, i.e., on
the question of how they would conduct their negotiations, particularly on whether
to consider retirement as a negotiable issue. Because of the continued impasse, the
union went on strike. The Secretary of Labor and Employment immediately
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute to avert widespread electric power
interruption in the country. After extensive discussions and the filing of position
papers (before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and before the
Secretary himself) on the validity of the union's strike and on the wage and other
economic issues (including the retirement issue), the DOLE Secretary ruled on the
validity of the strike and on the disputed CBA issues, and ordered the parties to
execute a CBA based on his rulings. Did the Secretary of Labor exceed his
jurisdiction when he proceeded to rule on the parties' CBA positions even though
the parties did not fully negotiate on their own? (2013 Bar Questions)
16.The Bantay-Salakay Security Agency (BSSA) employed ten security guards
and assigned them to Surot Theater which contracted BSSA for its security needs.
On November 3. 1988, the ten (10) security guards of BSSA addressed to the
Office of the President, a letter- complaint against their employer for non-
compliance with R.A. 6640 providing for an increase in the statutory minimum
wage and salary rates of employees and workers in the private sector. The letter
was endorsed to the Secretary of Labor who, in turn, referred the matter to the
Regional Director of Makunat City in Region XII where the ten (10) security
guards reside and where their employer conducts business. The Office of the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and called for a hearing with all the
parties present. Therefrom, the Regional Director found that there were indeed
violations commit-ted by BSSA against the ten (10) security guards, such as
underpayment of wages, non-integration of cost of living allowance, underpayment
of 13th-month pay and underpayment of five (5) days incentive pay BSSA and
Surot Theater were directed to comply with the labor standards and ordered BSSA
and Surot Theater to pay jointly and severally to the ten (10) security guards their
respective claim of P 10,000.00 each or an aggregate amount of PI00,000.00.
BSSA and Surot Theater filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court
seeking to annul the decision of the Regional Director on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case. Will the Petition for
Certiorari prosper? Decide with reason.
