Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Meralco Workers Union V Meralco

    Uploaded by

    Katrina
    35 views2 pages
    (1) The Manila Electric Company was charged with unfair labor practice for allegedly discriminately dismissing Conrado Trinidad for his union activities and refusing overtime compensation to union members. (2) The court found that Trinidad was dismissed due to his repeated absences without permission after being warned, not due to his union activities. Union members who were denied overtime had signed waivers in exchange for other privileges. (3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing the charges, as there was no discrimination found in Trinidad's dismissal or in the payment of overtime compensation.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law Review Assigned case.

    Original Title

    56. Meralco Workers Union v Meralco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) The Manila Electric Company was charged with unfair labor practice for allegedly discriminately dismissing Conrado Trinidad for his union activities and refusing overtime compensation to union members. (2) The court found that Trinidad was dismissed due to his repeated absences without permission after being warned, not due to his union activities. Union members who were denied overtime had signed waivers in exchange for other privileges. (3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing the charges, as there was no discrimination found in Trinidad's dismissal or in the payment of overtime compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    Meralco Workers Union V Meralco

    Uploaded by

    Katrina
    (1) The Manila Electric Company was charged with unfair labor practice for allegedly discriminately dismissing Conrado Trinidad for his union activities and refusing overtime compensation to union members. (2) The court found that Trinidad was dismissed due to his repeated absences without permission after being warned, not due to his union activities. Union members who were denied overtime had signed waivers in exchange for other privileges. (3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing the charges, as there was no discrimination found in Trinidad's dismissal or in the payment of overtime compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MERALCO WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs.

    MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET


    AL., respondents.

    FACTS:

    Review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. Petitioner union,


    composed of laborers and employees of the Manila Electric Company, charged the said company
    with unfair labor practice, alleging :

    (1) that it discriminatorily discharged Conrado Trinidad by reason of his union activities, and

    (2) that union members were refused overtime compensation enjoyed by non-members.

    Finding that Trinidad's discharge was caused by his repeated absences without previous
    permission and that the members who were denied overtime compensation had signed a waiver
    in consideration of certain valuable privileges, the lower court dismissed the charges.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Trinidad’s dismissal was proper due to unfair labor practice based on
    alleged discrimination in the payment of overtime compensation

    HELD:

    Petitioner tries to minimize the cause for Trinidad's dismissal by saying that he was discharged
    for having absented himself twice. But the fact is not disputed that previous to those two
    absences without permission, he had already been absent five times and warned that should he
    again absent himself from work without previous permission he would be dismissed from the
    service.

    Repeated absences without permission are something that should not be taken lightly in an
    enterprise, which, like the respondent company, is under obligation to furnish electric light and
    power twenty-four hours a day to the inhabitants of a metropolitan and industrial city like
    Manila, and that disregard of warning against repetition of a series of absences amounts to gross
    indiscipline which no enterprise should be compelled to tolerate.
    On the second count, petitioner contended that since the court had found that some
    workers worked overtime, it should have directed the respondent to make payment. But since the
    only issue in the case was that of unfair labor practice based on alleged discrimination in the
    payment of overtime compensation, and the court found that there had been no such
    discrimination, it had no alternative but to dismiss the charge as without foundation.

    If petitioner believes and can prove that there has been a violation of the eight-hour labor
    law, what it should do is to file a charge on that specific point so that adequate proof could be
    adduced for or against it. Petitioner cannot just assume that the waiver of overtime compensation
    by drivers who preferred to work in the motor pool was against the law, it appearing that such
    waiver was to be in consideration for certain valuable privileges they were to enjoy, and there is
    no proof that the value of those privileges did not adequately compensate for such work.

    Decision affirmed.

    You might also like