Simple Rules to Follow
Statutory framework of the Law
1. Know the constitutional
foundations of Labor Relations Law
Art. III, Sec. 8
Art. XIII, Sec. 3
• Right to form Unions for purposes not
contrary to law
• Right to self-organization
• Right to bargain collectively
• Right to peacefully concerted
activities.
2. Know the policy statements and
the policy declarations
a. Art. 211 – Policy Objectives of
the Law
b. Art. 254 – Limited use of
injunction in labor disputes
c. Art. 275 – Ruling on Tripartism
For all policy statements, there are
always operative provisions of the law
(Art. 212)
3. Understand the definition of
terms
a. Art. 212 – pay attention to
introductory term “means” or
“includes”
i. Includes – not a
complete definition but
rather a dictionary
definition of the term (only
4/5 terms)
ii. Means – complete
definition
b. Implementing Rules (Rule I) –
some are word-per-word
reproductions, there are certain
new terms that are not found in
the Labor Code
4.
• Map out the trees – specific provisions
of the law
• Forest – entire structure of the law
CONSTITUTION
Art. III Sec. 8 – Self-organization in both
public and private sectors; Where the right is
recognised by law, the constitution
immediately places a limitation: “for
purposes not contrary to law”
Art. XIII, Sec. 3 – Have a good working
knowledge of the provision, but relevant for
Labor Relations:
1. Recognition of Right of Self-Organization
2. Right to Bargain Collectively
3. Right to engage in peaceful concerted
activities in accordance with law
LABOR CODE
Art. 243
Art. 243 – All employees enjoy the right of
self-organization. But closer reading: not all
employees are classified similarly.
• 1st group: for purposes of self-
organisation, collective bargaining
(labour organisation)
• 2nd group: mutual aid and protection
(workers association)
This distinction should be read in the light of
the freedom of association clause,
because when the law denies the right to
self-organisation to others, this is only with
respect to collective bargaining, and not
mutual aid and protection.
Nature or purpose of establishment is
totally irrelevant. It is recognised and
extended regardless of the nature or purpose
of the establishment, whether organised for
profit or not, the right exists. There is a
fundamental change in the law because the
law does not make a distinction.
Three terms are used:
• Employer – includes any person acting in
the interest of an employer, directly or
indirectly [Art. 212 (e)]
• Employee – includes any person in the
employ of an employer [Art. 212 (f)]
• Labour organisation – means any union
or association of employees which exists
in whole or in part for the purpose of
collective bargaining or dealing with
employers concerning terms and
conditions of employment [Art. 212 (g)]
Definition of workers association is in the
IRR.
Art. 244
Art. 244 – Refers to employees of
Government Owned and Controlled
Corporation organised in the general law of
incorporation (Corporation Code). This should
be read in light with EO 180, which
recognizes the right of government (including
GOCC employees with original charters)
employees’ right to self-organization.
Art. 244 does not speak of employees
performing purely governmental functions,
neither of employees of GOCCs with original
charters.
Art. 245
Art. 245 –
1. Managerial employees – one vested
with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management
policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees. [Art.
212 (m)] They refer to those whose
primary duty consists of management
of the establishment in which they are
employed or of a department or
subdivision thereof, and to other
officers or members of the managerial
staff. [Art. 82]. The definition also
provides for the statement of their
conscience.
2. Supervisors – those, who in the
interest of the employer, effectively
recommend such managerial actions
if the exercise of such authority
effectively recommend such
managerial actions if the exercise of
such authority is not merely routinary
or clerical in nature but requires the
use of independent judgment. [Art.
212 (m)] They have the right to form
unions for purposes of collective
bargaining.
Art. 269
Art. 269 – Non-resident aliens, provided it
meets two requirements of the law:
1. Working permit via Art. 241
2. Rule of Reciprocity – the country of
origin extends the same benefits to
citizens of the Philippines
Art. 246
Art. 246 – Non-abridgment of the right. No
one can restraint, discriminate, or unduly
restrain the workers right to self-
organization.
THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANISATION
• Both constitutionally and statutorily
guaranteed right
• Right has been declared a right of
paramount value
• Cannot be denied to the workers on
simple or nebulous grounds
• Right specifically ordained, not a
derivative right
• Not a negotiable issue
Worker’s Qualification to Exercise the
Right
• Employee
• Art. 277 (c) – 1st day of work qualifies
for membership in the union,
regardless of status or tenure of the
employee.
• Art. 249 (a) – The union has the right
to promulgate rules and regulations
for admission and retention of union
membership
 • Art. 241 (e) – Labour organisation
shall not admit a worker who is a
member of a subversive organization
or wants to overthrow the
government.
o Anti-subversive law has been
amended
o No longer viableand is of
doubtful validity today, law
does not like implied repeals
Extent and Scope of Freedom of
Association
Right to join, form, or assist labor
organisations of their own choosing
• Very positive terms
• Kapatiran sa Meat and Canning Division v
Calleja (1988) – Includes the right to join,
the right to affiliate and the right to
disaffiliate
• Reyes v Trajano (1992) – Freedom
o Freedom of choice
o Power – the law will not compel
a worker to exercise a right provided
by law
Art. 249
Art. 249 – In case of a valid union security
clause, the worker who exercises the right in
a negative fashion, will have to face the
consequence: the employee will lose the
right to employment.
Right to Self-Organisation
• Includes the right to choose their
leaders for union administration and for
bargaining purposes. No one can interfere
on who their leaders will be. [Pan-
American World Airways v Pan-American
Employees Association (1969)]
• Protects whatever the union officer
will say, utter, in a board meeting in an
organisation established by the employer
[Union of Supervisors (R.B.) – NATU v
Secretary of Labor (1981)]
Enforcement of the Right
Violation is a violation of statute and
constitution
• Art. 248 – Unfair Labor Practices
committed by an employer
• Art. 249 – ULP committed by a labour
organisation
• Art. 290 – suspensive period for being
a cause of action, 1 year from the date of
accrual
• Art. 288, 289 – penalties, parties who
are liable in the event of ULP suit
Case:
FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation,
Inc. v Trajano (1987) – under Art. 243 of
Labor Code, the purpose of the establishment
as a non-profit training institution for medical
students is totally irrelevant when
considering the right of the worker to self-
organisation.
Managerial Employees
Defined by both Art. 82 and 212. Definition is
a statement of functions. If you distill the law,
you come up with two doctrines:
1. Managerial employees do not enjoy
the right of self organisation for
purposes of collective bargaining.
Although they are denied the right of self-
organisation for collective bargaining,
they cannot be denied of the right for
constitutional assembly for purposes of
mutual aid and protection.
2. Any extensions or prohibitions provided
for in the law must be strictly
construed, intent of the law is to
broaden the coverage. Thus, if employees
function is merely to declare the
statement of function of the employer,
then this employee is not a managerial
employee
Cooperative Employees
(Cases: Benguet Electric Cooperative v
Calleja; Ceneco v Sec of DOLE; and Republic
etc. v Asia Pro)
1. Where an individual is merely an
employee, and only an employee, this
worker enjoys the right of self
organisation.
2. Worker both employee and member
of the cooperative – cannot join a union
for purposes of collective bargaining
because an owner cannot bargain with his
own self.
3. Central Negros Electric Cooperative v
Secretary of DOLE (1991) rule:
a. Ownership, and not the right of
participation in the cooperative
management, is the deciding factor
for eligibility in unionising for
purposes of collective bargaining.
b. The individual who is an
employee/cooperative member can at
any time resign or withdraw from the
cooperative. In essence, it is making a
choice between the two (union or
cooperative). But if the rules of
cooperative clearly provide the
method for resigning, the worker must
comply.
Supervisors
Fundamental Rule: Who is a supervisor?
1. Acting on whose behalf? Supervisor is
not acting on his own behalf, he is acting
on behalf of an employer as defined in
the labor code.
2. Acts performed by the supervisor
requires -
a. The use of independent
judgment and not merely clerical in
nature.
b. Effective
Not supervisor = rank and file employees.
• The law is strict that in the case of
supervisors, the union must be composed
strictly of supervisorial employees.
• Amendments:
(1) Admission of rank-and-file
employees in supervisory
unions, just drop them to
retain the status of the union
(cured the doctrine in Toyota
that did not allow a union to
continue by virtue of mixed
membership)
(2) Supervisors and Rank-and-File
Unions of the same
establishment can affiliate in
the same national union even
if there’s a supervisorial
relationship (did away with the
doctrines in Adamson v CIR,
Atlas Litographic Services v
Laguesma, and de La Salle v
Laguesma)
• It is not the nomenclature/title that
attaches to the supervisor, but the job
that is done.
• Where the power is present but the
powers exercised is not effective (subject
to review of higher authority), therefore,
not a supervisor by definition.
• Factual issue, supervisors have been a
problem in labor law
Religion
• Kapatiran vs Calleja – If a worker’s
religion cannot accommodate unionism,
the choice is with the worker. The courts
will not interfere with the manner of
choice.
• Victoriano vs Elizalde – decided on the
basis of an amended law, Republic Act
No. 3350. Amendment specifically
 excluded members of that faith from the
coverage. “It is not amiss to point out
here that the free exercise of religious
profession or belief is superior to contract
rights. In case of conflicts, the latter
must, therefore yield to the former. (xxx)
Religious freedom, although not
unlimited, is a fundamental personal right
and liberty, and has a preferred position
in the hierarchy of values. Contractual
rights therefore, must yield to freedom of
religion.” (Azucena citing Bernas).
o But choose the Kapatiran case,
because it’s a more neutral doctrine.
• Problem becomes tricky when
defining what is religion: charismatic
religion or organised religion? [Will not be
asked in the exam]
Confidential Employees
• Access test is determinative
• San Miguel Corp v Laguesma –
cumulative test; confidential employee,
assists in formulation of labor relations
policy). Who is a confidential employee?
a. Determine the nature of the
information kept in confidence:
Does it affect management or
labor relations? Must be labor
relations matters.
b. Access is an integral part of
the job, not merely incidental
o If both rules are complied, the
right to self-organisation will be
denied
o San Miguel is the correct doctrine
 Cumulative test rule
 Integral not merely incidental
Security Guards
• Not mentioned in the Labor Code.
• Old Rule – prohibited security guards from
organising to avoid double loyalty
between Union and the property of the
employer that they are trying to protect
• New Rule – restored right
• Meralco v Sec of Labor (1991)
doctrine – Security guards have the right
to join labor organizations according to
their rank and status. But bear in mind
that these guards were direct employees
of Meralco. The security guards could join
rank-and-file and supervisor employees,
which means the old problem of double
loyalty happens.
Aliens
• Valid working permit + reciprocity
Non-employees
• Singer Sewing Machine Co. v Drilon
(1993) - No right because they are not
employees
LABOR ORGANIZATION
Statutory Roadmap
Art. 212 – Definition of labor organization,
legitimate labor organization, company union
IRR – workers association
Art. 212 (g)
Rule I, Sec. 1 (ccc) “Workers’ Association”
refers to an association of workers organized
for the mutual aid and protection or for any
legitimate purpose other than collective
bargaining.
Art. 211 - Nature of a Labor Organization and
its Role in Society
Art. 211 (b)
Art. 211 (c)
Art. 211 (e)
Art. 234 – Procedures for union registration
(independent unions) • Receives support from the employer

Art. 234-A – Affiliates Workers Association

Art. 237 – Federations/National Unions • Similar to labor organisation, because

Art. 234
Art. 234-A
Art. 237
Art. 239 – Cancellation (grounds have been
amended, only 3 now)
Art. 239
IR still incorporates the old law – but this is
still highly questionable.
Definition of Labor Organization
• Composed of employees
o Airline Pilots Association of the
Philippines v CIR (1977)– not limited to
one employer; thrust of the definition
is on purpose
composition is employees
• Difference in purpose: mutual aid and
protection
Art. 211 (b, c, e) – recognizes that unions are
valid institutions in Philippine society.
Ascribing the function to the union as an
instrument of democracy, promotion of social
justice, and finally, a strong and united labor
movement.
• One company, one union policy is not
the policy today
• Now, several unions in one company
HW: Read carefully 234, 234-A (distinguish
from national trade union centre; legitimate
status only for the purposes of filing a
petition for certification elections), 237.
Be careful with the financial statements.

• Purpose: collective bargaining (can

have plural purposes, provided one is
collective bargaining)

Definition of Legitimate Labor

Organization

• Registration with the DOLE

o Confers legitimate status

o May be registered as a non-

stock, non-profit org with the SEC but
still not an LLO

o Reckon with Art. 242 – Rights

only extended to LLOs

o Cebu Seamen’s Association,

Inc. v Ferrer-Calleja (1992) – valid with
the SEC, not valid under the Labor
Code

• NO definition of illegitimate labor

organization; Non-registration does not
make a labor organization as illegitimate.

Company Union