Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation
Facts:
The petitioner disfavored the fact that the private respondent employees have formed a union. When the union became the collective bargaining representative in the certification election, the petitioner refused to sit down to negotiate a CBA. Moreover, the respondents were not given work for a month amounting to unjustified dismissal. As a result, the complainants staged a strike to protest but was settled through a memorandum of agreement which contained a list of those considered as regular employees for the payroll.
The NLRC held that there was illegal dismissal and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue: W/N the employees are regular workers
RULING: Yes, they are regular and not seasonal employees. For them to be excluded as regulars, it is not enough that they perform work that is seasonal in nature but they also are employed for the duration of one season. The evidence only proved the first but not the second requirement.
The ruling in Mercado v. NLRC is not applicable since in that case, the workers were merely required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time, after which, their services are available to other employers. The management's sudden change of assignment reeks of bad faith, it is likewise guilty of ULP.
No comments:
Post a Comment