In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned, and Nod sought permission from the company to distribute flyers with respect to a weekend union activity. The company HR manager granted the request through a text message sent to another union member, Norlyn.
While Nad, Ned, and Nod were distributing the flyers at the company assembly plant, a company supervisor barged in and demanded that they cease from distributing the flyers, stating that the assembly line employees were trying to beat a production deadline and were thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show the HR manager’s text message authorizing flyer distribution during work hours, but the supervisor brushed it aside.
As a result, Nad, Ned, and Nod were suspended for violating company rules on trespass and highly-limited union activities during work hours. The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the NLRC for union discrimination.
a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union prosper? (2.5%)
b) Assume the NLRC ruled in favor of the Union. The Labor Arbiter’s judgment included, among others, an award for moral and exemplary damages at PhP50,000.00 each for Nad, Ned, and Nod. should Northern be Lights given to Corporation the Union, and argued not that individually any award to its of members. Is Northern Lights Corporation correct? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) **Yes**, the ULP case will prosper. (b) **No**, Northern Lights Corporation is incorrect. Under Art. 259(a) of the Labor Code, interfering with or coercing employees in their right to self-organization constitutes ULP. Under *Digitel Phils.,
Unlock the full Labor Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What constitutes unfair labor practice by an employer under Article 259(a) of the Labor Code?
Article 259(a) defines unfair labor practice as employer interference, restraint, or coercion of employees exercising self-organization rights.
Under Digitel v. Digitel Employees Union, to whom should moral damages arising from ULP be awarded when specific workers are harmed?
Moral damages arising from ULP are awarded individually to specifically identified workers who suffered the injury.
Why is an employer's suspension of union members for distributing flyers illegal after HR granted prior permission?
Suspending employees who acted in good faith with prior HR authorization constitutes unlawful coercion and ULP.
Does the right to self-organization include the freedom of union members to distribute informational flyers about union activities?
Choices available with full access.
Is an employer correct in arguing that ULP damage awards must be given exclusively to the union rather than individual members?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Unfair Labor Practice
Under Article 259(a) of the Labor Code, an employer commits unfair labor practice when it interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. Union activities such as distributing informational flyers regarding weekend union meetings constitute protected concerted activities. When union members distribute flyers after securing prior authorization from management, a subsequent suspension based on alleged trespass or distraction constitutes an unlawful interference with self-organization and an act of union discrimination amounting to unfair labor practice.
2. Individual Damages Award
Under settled labor jurisprudence, particularly Digitel Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Digitel Employees Union, moral and exemplary damages resulting from an employer's unfair labor practice may be awarded individually to specifically identified union members. While unfair labor practice is an offense against the union as an entity, individual workers who personally suffer illegal suspension, mental anguish, and humiliation as a direct result of the employer's coercive actions are entitled to receive individual damage awards rather than turning over the indemnity to the union.
3. Right to Self-Organization
The constitutional and statutory right to self-organization encompasses the freedom of union members to communicate with fellow workers regarding legitimate union affairs and activities. Employer regulations restricting union activity during work hours must be applied reasonably and in good faith. Where management explicitly grants permission to distribute flyers, a supervisor cannot arbitrarily override that authorization to penalize active union members. Suspending employees who acted in good faith reliance on official company clearance infringes upon protected organizational rights.