Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-3 211 217 Case Title / Issue Bautista vs. Inciong (1988) WON a Union can be an employer Facts Illegal dismissal case Bautista is a union organizer of Associated Labor Union, the latter pays his share of SSS contributions He filed a sick leave of absence When he reported back to work at the end of his leave, the VP for Luzon informed him that his services is being terminated He filed the case. The Director ruled in his favor but the decision was reversed on appeal on the ground of No Er-Ee relationship Ruling/Ratio Yes. Ratio: The mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does not mean that it cannot be considered an employer of the persons who work for it. Cited Brotherhood Labor Unity, Existence of Er-Ee relationship, Rule (Control Test): (1) the selection and engagement of the Ee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the Er's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods - Case facts: (1) payroll, i.e., Union paid his wages; (2) share in SSS remittances; (3) union's act of filing a clearance application with the MOL to terminate the petitioner's services; (4) Union hired him. - Conclusion: there is an Er-Ee relationship b/n ALU and Bautista. Ruling: Awarded severance pay (3 years backwages + separation pay)