FINAL EXAMS - LABOR RELATIONS LAW

1. In her State of the Nation Address, the President stressed the need to
provide an investor-friendly business environment so that the country
can compete in the global economy that now suffers from a crisis
bordering on recession. Responding to the call, Congress passed two
innovative legislative measures, namely: (1) a law abolishing the
security of tenure clause in the Labor Code; and (2) a law allowing
contractualization in all areas needed in the employer’s business
operations. However, to soften the impact of these new measures, the
law requires that all employers shall obtain mandatory unemployment
insurance coverage for all their employees. The constitutionality of
the two (2) laws is challenged in court. As judge, how will you rule?
(10 pts)

2. Clarito, an employee of Juan, was dismissed for allegedly stealing

Juan’s wristwatch. In the illegal dismissal case instituted by Clarito,
the Labor Arbiter, citing Article 4 of the Labor Code, ruled in favor of
Clarito upon finding Juan’s testimony doubtful. On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter holding that Article 4 applies only when
the doubt involves "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor
Code provisions. The NLRC explained that the doubt may not
necessarily be resolved in favor of labor since this case involves the
application of the Rules on Evidence, not the Labor Code. Is the
NLRC correct? Explain with reasons. (10 pts)

3. Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial
assistance. Only the company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's
ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of whether
financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling
solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiter's
decision; it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and
ordered the payment of separation pay and full backwages. Through a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker
Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that
the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the
illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue brought on appeal was the
legal propriety of the financial assistance award. Cris countered that
under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority
to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether
 in substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decide the case. (10 pts)

4. ABC Tomato Corporation, owned and managed by three (3) elderly

brothers and two (2) sisters, has been in business for 40 years. Due to
serious business losses and financial reverses during the last five (5)
years, they decided to close the business. Is the closure allowed by
law? (5 pts)

5. Bobby, who was assigned as company branch accountant in Tarlac

where his family also lives, was dismissed by Theta Company after
anomalies in the company's accounts were discovered in the branch.
Bobby filed a complaint and was ordered reinstated with full
backwages after the Labor Arbiter found that he had been denied due
process because no investigation actually took place. Theta Company
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and at
the same time wrote Bobby, advising him to report to the main
company office in Makati where he would be reinstated pending
appeal. Bobby refused to comply with his new assignment because
Makati is very far from Tarlac and he cannot bring his family to live
with him due to the higher cost of living in Makati. Is Bobby's
reinstatement pending appeal legally correct? (10 pts)

6. Pepe Santos was an international flight steward of Flysafe Airlines.

Under FSA's Cabin Crew Administration Manual, Santos must
maintain, given his height and body frame, a weight of 150 to 170
pounds. After 5 years as a flight steward, Santos began struggling
with his weight; he weighed 200 lbs., 30 pounds over the prescribed
maximum weight. The Airline gave him a one-year period to attain
the prescribed weight, and enrolled him in several weight reduction
programs. He consistently failed to meet his target. He was given a 6-
month grace period, after which he still failed to meet the weight
limit. FSC thus sent him a Notice of Administrative Charge for
violation of company standards on weight requirements. He stated in
his answer that, for medical reasons, he cannot have a rapid weight
loss. A clarificatory hearing was held where Santos fully explained his
predicament. The explanation did not satisfy FSA and so it decided to
terminate Santos's service for violation of company standards. Santos
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the company's
weight requirement policy is unreasonable and that his case is not a
disciplinary but a medical issue (as one gets older, the natural
tendency is to grow heavier). FSA defended its policy as a valid
 exercise of management prerogative and from the point of view of
passenger safety and extraordinary diligence required by law of
common carriers; it also posited that Santos failure to achieve his
ideal weight constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty, as well as
willful disobedience to lawful employer orders. The Labor Arbiter
found the dismissal illegal for there was neither gross and habitual
neglect of duty nor willful disobedience. Is the Labor Arbiter correct?
Why or why not? Explain fully. (10 pts)

7. Procedurally, how do you stay a decision, award or order of the Labor

Arbiter? Discuss fully. (5 pts) May a decision of the Labor Arbiter
which has become final and executory be novated through a
compromise agreement of the parties? (5 pts)

8. The Local Government Code requires the submission of disputes

before the Barangay Lupong Tagapamayapa prior to the filing of
cases with the courts or other government bodies. May this decree be
used to defeat a labor case filed directly with the Labor Arbiter?
Discuss fully. (10 pts)

9. Alexander, a security guard of Jaguar Security Agency (JSA), could

not be given any assignment because no client would accept him. He
had a face only a mother could love. After six (6) months of being on
"floating" status, Alexander sued JSA for constructive dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter upheld Alexander’s claim of constructive dismissal and
ordered JSA to immediately reinstate Alexander. JSA appealed the
decision to the NLRC. Alexander sought immediate enforcement of
the reinstatement order while the appeal was pending. JSA hires you
as lawyer, and seeks your advice. Because JSA has no client who
would accept Alexander, can it still be compelled to reinstate him
pending appeal even if it has posted an appeal bond? (10 pts)

10.Can a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor

Arbiter be submitted to voluntary arbitration? Why or why not? (5
pts)

11.Pablo works as a driver at the National Tire Company (NTC). He is a

member of the Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa NTC, the
exclusive rank-and-file collective bargaining representative in the
company. The union has a CBA with NTC which contains a union
security and a check-off clause. The union security clause contains a
maintenance of membership provision that requires all members of
 the bargaining unit to maintain their membership in good standing
with the union during the term of the CBA under pain of dismissal.
The check-off clause on the other hand authorizes the company to
deduct from union members' salaries defined amounts of union dues
and other fees. Pablo refused to issue an authorization to the company
for the check-off of his dues, maintaining that he will personally remit
his dues to the union. Can the union charge Pablo with disloyalty for
refusing to allow the check off of his union dues and, on this basis,
ask the company to dismiss him from employment? (10 pts)

12.Explain the difference between a run-off election and a re-run

election? (5pts) Discuss the conditions required in order to conduct a
run-off election. (5pts)

13. Discuss briefly the 4 bar rules as applied in certification elections.

(5pts) Is there any other instance in which a certification election may
not be entertained aside from the application of the aforementioned 4
bar rules? Discuss. (5pts)