De Leon v. NLRC (May 30, 2001)

FACTS: Fortune Tobacco (FTC) and FISI had a contract for security services and petitioners were among those engaged asguards. Later all FISI stock was sold and its name changed to MISI. FTC then terminated the contract so 582 guards were released. Later on, the union of FTC sent a notice of strike to FISI/MISI, claiming to represent the guards who were released. It argues that FISI/MISI and FTC are one and the same as both use the name Fortune and that they were terminated because FTC wanted to bust their union forming activities. FTC argues that it is distinct from FISI/MISI and that it had no employer-employee relationship with the guards. FISI argues that the guards were not illegally dismissed but they were on floating status due to FTC’s termination of the contract. The LA ruled in favor of the guards saying that FTC and FISI are one as they had the same shareholders and shared the same address so there was illegal dismissal and union busting. The NLRC reversed it because when the guards were terminated, MISI was handling them and it had a different set of shareholders and they were release because FTC terminated the contract so FISI could not be faulted.


ISSUE: W/N there was illegal dismissal and union-busting


HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the guards. There is sufficient ground to conclude that there was ULP as the company interfered with the self-organization of the guards. FISI had no other clients except FTC and other companies controlled by Lucio Tan, so it was a mere instrumentality of FTC. When the stocks of FISI were sold and when FTC terminated the contracts it was a concerned effort to remove the guards from the company and abate the growth of the union and block its actions to enforce their demands as this was all done soon after the guards started organizing themselves. The test of whether an employer has interfered with a coerced employees is whether he has engaged in conduct which may reasonably be said to interfere with the free exercise of employee’s rights and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer i8f there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self organization and collective bargaining.