Scribd
Upload
102 views2 pages

Labor Dispute Resolution Analysis

This document summarizes a labor law case between the Manila Diamond Hotel Employees' Union and the Manila Diamond Hotel regarding workers that were dismissed after participating in a strike. The issues involved whether the workers were unjustly dismissed and whether the Secretary of Labor correctly modified its previous order for the workers to return under the same terms prior to the strike. The court found that the Secretary of Labor abused its discretion by modifying the order without sufficient justification, as the labor code clearly states that in such disputes workers must return under the original terms and conditions.

Uploaded by

Paolo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views2 pages

Labor Dispute Resolution Analysis

This document summarizes a labor law case between the Manila Diamond Hotel Employees' Union and the Manila Diamond Hotel regarding workers that were dismissed after participating in a strike. The issues involved whether the workers were unjustly dismissed and whether the Secretary of Labor correctly modified its previous order for the workers to return under the same terms prior to the strike. The court found that the Secretary of Labor abused its discretion by modifying the order without sufficient justification, as the labor code clearly states that in such disputes workers must return under the original terms and conditions.

Uploaded by

Paolo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

John Henrich T.

Sultan
Labor Law II
JD2B
09984533676
[email protected]

MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES' UNION, vs.


THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, and THE MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL

Issues:

 Whether the workers of the Manila Diamond Hotel that participated in the
strike were unjustly dismissed
 Whether the Secretary of Labor was right in modifying its previous
judgment from ordering the workers to report back to work under the same
terms and conditions prior to the strike to a mere payroll reinstatement

Ratio:

 The court finds merit in the contention of the petitioner union.


 The court makes a clear distinction between the case at bar and its decision
in UST v. NLRC where the alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement was
justified by the court. The UST case has the distinction that the
reinstatement order was given in the middle of the semester and that a
change of faculty would be detrimental to the educational quality received
by the students.
 Though respondents pointed out that the strained relationship between the
employer and its employees may cause the same amount of detriment to the
quality of work that may be rendered, the petitioner was right in saying that
strained relationships between both parties are true for any labor dispute.
Even with such emotions and bitter relationships involved, it should still be
the duty of the government to correctly apply the law.
 The court also then points out Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code to wit:

“When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute


causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
the same to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall
have the effect of automatically enjoining the
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order. If one has
already taken place at the time of assumption or
certification, all striking or locked out employees
shall immediately return-to-work and the employer
shall immediately resume operations and readmit
all workers under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the
Commission may seek the assistance of law
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with
this provision as well as with such orders as he
may issue to enforce the same.”
 The court therefore found that the decision rendered by the Secretary of
Labor constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting of lack or excess of
jurisdiction. While true that the Secretary of Labor is given great breadth in
its discretion, it failed to show cause of the application of the alternative
remedy, while the UST case shows an extraordinary reason why a payroll
reinstatement was necessary, the same cannot be said in the case at bar, and
with the provision above mentioned being clear and categorical, the
Secretary of Labor need only to apply the law without need for further
construction.

Summary:

 The case gives a call back to fundamental legal principles such as powers of
administrative bodies and statutory construction, corollary to the fact is that
in application to labor law, the case provides a substantial alternative
remedies in strikes or labor disputes, but it is also necessary that such
remedies be applied fully, and the modification of such remedies, art. 263 in
as an example should only be made in special circumstances otherwise; its
capricious application in some cases may defeat the purpose of the law.

You might also like