T - H Shopfitters Co v. T - H Shopfitters Co Union

9.
T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN

CORPORATION v. T & H SHOPFITTERS Issue/s:
CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN WORKERS UNION et al 1. WON ULP acts were committed by petitioners against
G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014, Mendoza, J: respondents – YES.
Held:
Facts: 1. ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress
1. Respondents officers and members of THS–GQ the workers’ right to organize. As specified in Articles
union, filed their Complaint for ULP against T&H 248 [now Article 257] and 249 [now Article 258] of the
Shopfitters Corporation and Gin Queen Corporation Labor Code, the prohibited acts must necessarily
(collectively referred to as “petitioners”) before theLA. relate to the workers’ right to self–organization. In the
2. Respondents treated T&H Shopfitters and Gin Queen case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees
as a single entity and their sole employer. In their Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co.
desire to improve their working conditions, Ltd., this Court had occasion to lay down the test of
respondents and other employees of petitioners held whether an employer has interfered with and coerced
their first formal meeting to discuss the formation of a employees in the exercise of their right to self–
union. The following day, 17 employees were barred organization, that is, whether the employer has
from entering petitioners’ factory premises located in engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said,
Castillejos, Zambales, and ordered to transfer to T&H tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’
Shopfitters’ warehouse at Subic Bay Freeport Zone rights; and that it is not necessary that there be direct
(SBFZ) purportedly because of its expansion. evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or
a. Afterwards, the 17 employees were coerced by statements of threats of the employer if
repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due there is a reasonable inference that anti–union
to the unavailability of work. conduct of the employer does have an adverse
b. DOLE Regional Office No. III issued a effect on self–organization and collective
certificate of registration in favor of THS–GQ bargaining.
Union.
3. Respondents contended that the affected employees The questioned acts of petitioners: 1) sponsoring a
were not given regular work assignments, while field trip to Zambales to the exclusion of union
subcontractors were continuously hired to perform members, before the election; 2) the active campaign
their functions. Later, an agreement between by the sales officer of petitioners against the union
petitioners and the Union was reached and the former prevailing as a bargaining agent during the field trip;
agreed to give priority to regular employees in the 3) escorting its employees after the field trip to the
distribution of work assignments. However, petitioners polling center; 4) the continuous hiring of
never complied with its commitment. subcontractors performing their functions; 5)
4. THS–GQ Union filed a petition for certification assigning union members to the site to work as grass
election. An order was issued to hold the certification cutters; and 6) the enforcement of work on a rotational
election in both T&H Shopfitters and Gin Queen. basis for union members, all reek of interference on
5. Meanwhile, the Director for Gin Queen informed its the part of petitioners.
employees of the expiration of the lease contract
between Gin Queen and its lessor in Castillejos, The various acts of petitioners reasonably support an
Zambales and announced the relocation of its office inference that such were all orchestrated to restrict
and workers to Cabangan, Zambales. The union respondents’ free exercise of their right to self–
officers and members were made to work as grass organization. Petitioners’ undisputed actions prior and
cutters in Cabangan. Due to these circumstances, the immediately before the scheduled certification
employees assigned did not report for work. election, while seemingly innocuous, unduly meddled
6. On the day of the election, the employees were in the affairs of its employees in selecting their
escorted from the field trip to the polling center in exclusive bargaining representative.
Zambales to cast their votes. The remaining
employees situated at the SBFZ plant cast their votes Petitioners had no business persuading and/or
as well. However, due to the heavy pressure exerted assisting its employees in their legally protected
by petitioners, the votes for “no union” prevailed. independent process of selecting their exclusive
Thus, the Union filed its protest with respect to the bargaining representative.3 The fact and peculiar
certification election proceedings. timing of the field trip was undoubtedly extraneous
7. The following week after the certification elections influence designed to impede respondents in their
were held, petitioners retrenched the Union officers quest to be certified. This cannot be countenanced.
and members assigned at the Zambales plant.
8. LA = DISMISSED1 COMPLAINT OF Not content with achieving a “no union” vote in the
RESPONDENTS. NLRC and CA = REVERSED. 2 certification election, petitioners launched a vindictive
Union won campaign against union members by assigning work
on a rotational basis while subcontractors performed
the latter’s functions regularly. Some of the
1
Basically, there was no showing that the transfer of these 17 workers respondents were made to work as grass cutters in an
is considered an unfair labor practice of the respondents considering effort to dissuade them from further collective action.
that their transfer was effected long before the union was organized. Again, this cannot be countenanced. More
2
They committed ULP acts consisting in interfering with the exercise of importantly, petitioners’ bare denial of some of the
the employees’ right to self–organization by sponsoring a field trip on complained acts and unacceptable explanations
the day preceding the certification election, warning the employees of
dire consequences should the union prevail, and escorting them to the
3
polling center. Also, discriminating in regard to conditions of Holy Child Catholic School v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas – because the
employment in order to discourage union membership. ER is a mere bystander.
cannot prevail over respondents’ detailed narration of
the events that transpired. It bears to emphasize that
in labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds,
equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the November 12, 2009 Decision of

the Court of Appeals and its March 24, 2010
Resolution, in CA–G.R. SP No. 107188, are
AFFIRMED, except with respect to the award of
attorney’s fees which is hereby DELETED.

T - H Shopfitters Co v. T - H Shopfitters Co Union

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T - H Shopfitters Co v. T - H Shopfitters Co Union

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9.

T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN

WHEREFORE, the November 12, 2009 Decision of

You might also like