Manila Mining Corp. Employees v. Manila Mining

MANILA MINING CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS f.
f. That they were denied due process because they were not given a 30-day notice
CHAPTER (UNION), SAMUEL G. ZUÑIGA (ZUNIGA) (collectively PETITIONERS) informing them of the lay-off. Neither was the DOLE informed of this lay-off, as
vs. mandated by law.
MANILA MINING CORP. (MMC) et al. (collectively RESPONDENTS) 9. RESPONDENTS justified the temporary lay-off as bona fide in character and a
G.R. 178222-23, 29 September 2010 valid management prerogative pending the issuance of the permit to
PEREZ, J. continuously operate TP No. 7.
ELINZANO 10. LA: In favor of MMC. It held that the temporary shutdown of the mining
DOCTRINE: operation, as well as the temporary lay-off of the employees, is valid.
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the employer was 11. NLRC: modified the judgment of the LA and ordered the payment of separation
motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor. The employer must pay. It ratiocinated that the temporary lay-off, which exceeded more than six (6)
have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing social months, had the effect of severance of the employer-employee relationship. The
humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While the law makes it an obligation for the dispositive portion of the Decision read:
employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each other, such compulsion does not 12. CA: modified the NLRC ruling insofar as it holds MMC liable to pay the Union
include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. All it attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the award, which portion of the questioned
contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make
decision is now SET ASIDE. Hence, the petitioners brought the case before the
reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement.
SC.
FACTS: (REFER TO THE TITLE)
ISSUE: Does the lay-off constitute Unfair Labor Practice?
1. MMC is a engaged in large-scale mining for gold and copper ore. MMC is
HELD:
required by law to maintain a tailings containment facility to store the waste
material generated by its mining operations.
NO. The lay-off is neither illegal nor can it be considered as unfair labor
2. On 10 January 2000, 11 rank-and-file employees of MMC attended the
practice. Unfair labor practice cannot be imputed to MMC since, as ruled by the
organizational meeting of the UNION.
Court of Appeals, the call of MMC for a suspension of the CBA negotiations cannot
3. On 3 March 2000, the Union filed with the DOLE all the requirements for its
be equated to “refusal to bargain.”
registration.
4. The Union acquired its legitimate registration status on 30 March 2000.
For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper, it must be shown that the
Subsequently, MMC conveyed its intention to bargain collectively. Thus, the
employer was motivated by ill-will, bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor.
Union submitted its CBA proposal to MMC.
The employer must have acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or
5. Upon expiration of the tailings permit, MMC was compelled by the DENR to
public policy causing social humiliation, wounded feelings or grave anxiety. While
temporarily shut down its mining operations due to its failure to secure an
the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), resulting in the temporary lay-
collectively with each other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to
off of more than 400 employees in the mine site.
precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. All it contemplates is that
6. On 30 July 2001, MMC called for the suspension of negotiations on the CBA
both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and make reasonable
with the Union until resumption of mining operations.
effort to reach a common ground of agreement.22
7. Then, PETITIONERS filed a complaint before the labor arbiter praying for
reinstatement, recognition of the Union as the sole and exclusive representative
The Union based its contention on the letter request by MMC for the
of its rank-and-file employees, and payment of moral and exemplary damages
suspension of the collective bargaining negotiations until it resumes
and attorney’s fees.
operations. Verily, it cannot be said that MMC deliberately avoided the negotiation.
8. They challenged the validity of their lay-off on the averment:
a. That MMC was not suffering from business losses.
It merely sought a suspension and in fact, even expressed its willingness to negotiate
b. That MMC did not want to bargain collectively with the Union, so that instead of once the mining operations resume. There was valid reliance on the suspension of
submitting their counterproposal to the CBA, MMC decided to terminate all union mining operations for the suspension, in turn, of the CBA negotiation. The Union
officers and active members. failed to prove bad faith in MMC’s actuations.
c. That there was no showing that cost-cutting measures were taken by MMC;
d. That no criteria were employed in choosing which employees to lay-off; DISPOSITION: PETITION DENIED.
e. That the individuals laid-off were those who signed the attendance sheet of the
union organizational meeting; and

Manila Mining Corp. Employees v. Manila Mining

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

Manila Mining Corp. Employees v. Manila Mining

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANILA MINING CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS f.

You might also like