Download TQC-Labor.docx
of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  1. In case of money claims under Article 128, there is no limit to the amount of money claim involved in order for the Regional Director to validly exercise his power because the amount of 5,000 is not a limitation on the enforcement power but on the adjudicatory (recovery ) power provided under Art 129 of the LC 2. The effect if while the ROD is exercising its power under Article 128 and found out that the employee-employer relationship no longer exist is the case, whether accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Thus, the dismissal of the complaint against petitioner is proper.  3. The cause of action under Article 129 of the Labor Code is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This requirement of employee-employer relationship is jurisdictional for the provisions of the Labor Code, specifically Book VI thereof, on Post-Employment, toc apply. 4. The kind of power that is vested by the law to the Labor arbiter under article 224 of the LC is  5. The doctrine of reasonable causal connection rule provides that Under the reasonable causal connection rule, if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of our labor courts. In the absence of such nexus, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction. 6. The termination disputes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter are money claims of workers which do not arise out of or in connection with their employer-employee relationship, and which would therefore fall within the general jurisdiction of the regular courts of justice, were intended by the legislative authority to be taken away from the jurisdiction of the courts and lodged with Labor Arbiters on an exclusive basis. 38  hen the claim for damages is grounded on the wanton failure and refusal without just cause of an employee to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave ofabsence, the same falls within the purview of Civil Law  7. The la has no jurisdiction despite the existence of employer-emplyee relationship are  8. The secretary of labor and the labor arbiter can take cognizance in the case of No. 8. What is the case whose jurisdiction can be taken cognizance of by the Secretary of Labor and the Labor Arbiter?  In case when, in the opinion of the Secretary of Labor, there exist a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lock-out in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and employment has concurrent jurisdiction over those cognizable by the Labor Arbiter under Art. 278(g) of the Labor Code which is an exercise of the assumption or the pre-emptive power. No. 9. Distinguish the LAs jurisdiction and that of Voluntary Arbitrators. Jurisdiction over termination disputes belongs to Labor Arbiters and not with the grievance machinery or Voluntary  Arbitrator. Under Article 262, the Voluntary Arbitrator may assume jurisdiction only when agreed upon by the parties. Policy Instructions No. 56 issued by DOLE Secretary Confesor clarifying the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and  Voluntary Arbitrations does not apply. It reiterated the ruling that dismissal is not a grievable issue.  The Labor Arbiters shall have srcinal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. However, the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators is limited only to cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred and disposed of by the Labor Arbiter to the former as may be provided in said agreements. No. 10. Can Voluntary Arbitrator assume jurisdiction over termination disputes of an employee? Yes. As a general rule, the labor arbiter has exclusive and srcinal jurisdiction over termination disputes. However, termination cases arising from interpretation and implementation of the collective bargaining agreement belong to the voluntary arbitrators. (Atlas Farms, Inc. v. NLRC, G. R. No. 142244) 11. Explain the nature of the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter The jurisdiction is srcinal and exclusive in nature. Labor Arbiters have no appellate jurisdiction.  Original jurisdiction refers to the power of the Labor Arbiter to take judicial cognizance of labor cases instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law. Exclusive jurisdiction means that it has power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of other courts at that stage. 12. Who has jurisdiction over money claims arising from a Collective Bargaining Agreement? The Grievance Machinery has the jurisdiction over money claims arising from Collective Bargaining agreement. Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Grievance Machinery are the following: 1. the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA); and 2. the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. 13. Distinguish the reinstatement ordered by the LA from that of issued by the NLRC A writ of execution is not necessary to implement the reinstatement order issued by a Labor Arbiter upon a finding of illegality of dismissal since it is self-executory, however, if the reinstatement order is issued by the NLRC on appeal, there is a need to secure a writ of execution from the Labor Arbiter a quo to enforce the reinstatement of the employee. 14. Suppose the LA ordered the reinstatement of the Employee while the employer appeals the decisions of the LA, what are the remedies/options of the Employer?  Answer: The employer is given under the law two (2) options on reinstatement: 1. Actual reinstatement  –  the employer is restored to his former position under the same terms and conditions of employment prevailing prior his dismissal. Here, the employee performs his job and he is paid his compensation. 2. Payroll reinstatement  –  reinstatement of the employee in the payroll of the company without requiring him to report back for work, but he receives his compensation. 15. Based on Number 14, can the employee insist on his right to choose what remedy should be taken since there is order of reinstatement?  Answer: No, it is the employer which is given by the law the option as to the option of reinstatement. However, the Rules require the employer to notify the employee of his choice of option. Indeed, there is a violation of the labor-law princ iple of “fair  - days” wage for fair  - day’s  labor but that is the mandate of the law. Although it is harsh, it should be implemented on the basis of the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex.” (Mao ni explanation sa book)  16. What is the effect if the employer fails to reinstate the employee despite the order of reinstatement?  Answer: Thus, until the employer continuously fails to actually implement the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the labor arbiter, their obligations to respondents, in so far as accrued backwages and other benefits are concerned, continue to accumulate. It is only when the illegally dismissed employee received the separation. It is only when the illegally dismissed employee received the separation pay that it could be claimed with certainty that the employer-employee relationship has formally ceased thereby precluding the possibility of reinstatement. In the meantime, the illegally dismissed employee’s entitlement to backwaages, 1th month pay, and other benefits subsists. Until the payment of separation pay is carried out, the employer should not be allowed to remain unpunished for the delay, if not outright refusal, to immediately execute the reinstatement aspect of the labor arbiter’s decision.   17) What are the grounds to appeal the decision of LA?  Answer: There are four (4) grounds, to wit:  A) If there is a prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor  Arbiter: B) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption; C) If made purely on questions of law; and D) If serious errors in the finding of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. 18) What are the requisites to perfect the appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter?  Answer: The appeal shall be: ( 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of the Rule;
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks