Anda di halaman 1dari 3

G.R. No.

96189 July 14, 1992

Test applied: community or vs.
fment of Labor and

collective bargaining.

In the case at bar, the

UNION, represented by its President
, mechanics,

full interests and duties as well as in the compensation and working conditio OF THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

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 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 plumbers; and
Secondacademicthe 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 , Rosario del Rosario, respondent.

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
employees can easily be categorized into two general classes:
Firstnon-academicjanitors Employment, and THE ALL U.P. WORKERS' 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

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