Law Dictionary

Question XIII, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question XIII, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

A.

Given that the liability for an illegal strike is individual, not collective, state when the participating union officers and members may be terminated from employment because of the illegal strike. Explain your answer. (4%)

B.

A sympathetic strike is stoppage of work to make common cause with other strikers in another establishment or business. Is the sympathetic strike valid? Explain your answer. (1%)

C.

Due to business recession, Ballistic Company retrenched a part of its workforce. Opposing the retrenchment, some of the affected employees staged a strike. Eventually, the retrenchment was found to be justified, and the strike was declared illegal; hence, the leaders of the strike, including the retrenched employees, were declared to have lost their employment status.

Are the striking retrenched employees still entitled to separation pay under Sec. 298 (283) of the Labor Code despite the illegality of their strike? Explain your answer. (2%)

Suggested Answer:

A. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.

Any union member who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.

B. No. Answer

Under the Labor Code, a strike may be declared only in the following cases:

1) Bargaining deadlocks;

2) Unfair labor practices; and

3) Violations of collective bargaining agreements, except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. Rule

In the case of a sympathetic strike, neither of the above grounds is present. Apply

Thus, a sympathetic strike is not valid. Conclusion

C. Yes. Answer

Under the Labor Code, retrenched employees are entitled to separation pay. Rule

In the case at bar, retrenchment was already implemented prior to the strike and later on illegal strike. Meaning, the employees were already entitled to the separation pay even before they staged a strike. On the other hand, the employer was already obligated to pay the separation pay before the strike. The declaration of strike as illegal later on has no effect on the entitlement of the employees to the separation pay. Apply

Thus, the striking retrenched employees are still entitled to separation despite the illegality of the strike. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question VI, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups

Top Read

Legal Separation

1. GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION Grounds for legal separation: 1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or

nemo tenetur seipsum accusare

Latin maxim. • “No one is bound to accuse himself.” (Google Translate; See Villaflor v. Summers, En Banc, G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920) •

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

nemo tenetur seipsum accusare

Latin maxim. • “No one is bound to accuse himself.” (Google Translate; See Villaflor v. Summers, En Banc, G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920) •

distingue tempora et concordabis jura

Latin maxim. • “Distinguish times and you will harmonize laws.” (Commissioner of Customs v. Superior Gas and Equipment Co., En Banc, G.R. No. L-14115, May

stare decisis et non quieta movere

Latin maxim. • “to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established” (Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009)

Read more

Annotations

Homicide, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept and legal basis Article 249. Homicide. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the

You cannot copy content of this page