Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Araneta Employees Vs ROLDAN

    Uploaded by

    Karen Pearl Cue
    The document summarizes a court case from 1955 regarding the layoff of 17 employees by Gregorio Araneta, Inc's Agricultural Division. The Division was overcapitalized so the Board adopted a retrenchment policy to reduce costs by importing less merchandise and reducing credit. This required reducing the workforce. The selected employees were given separation pay except one. The court ruled the layoffs due to a legitimate retrenchment policy aimed at reducing overcapitalization, not targeting union activities, were not an unfair labor practice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Araneta Employees Vs ROLDAN

    Uploaded by

    Karen Pearl Cue
    108 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case from 1955 regarding the layoff of 17 employees by Gregorio Araneta, Inc's Agricultural Division. The Division was overcapitalized so the Board adopted a retrenchment policy to reduce costs by importing less merchandise and reducing credit. This required reducing the workforce. The selected employees were given separation pay except one. The court ruled the layoffs due to a legitimate retrenchment policy aimed at reducing overcapitalization, not targeting union activities, were not an unfair labor practice.

    Original Description:

    Labor law case digest; the existence of employer-employee relationship

    Original Title

    Araneta Employees vs ROLDAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case from 1955 regarding the layoff of 17 employees by Gregorio Araneta, Inc's Agricultural Division. The Division was overcapitalized so the Board adopted a retrenchment policy to reduce costs by importing less merchandise and reducing credit. This required reducing the workforce. The selected employees were given separation pay except one. The court ruled the layoffs due to a legitimate retrenchment policy aimed at reducing overcapitalization, not targeting union activities, were not an unfair labor practice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    108 views1 page

    Araneta Employees Vs ROLDAN

    Uploaded by

    Karen Pearl Cue
    The document summarizes a court case from 1955 regarding the layoff of 17 employees by Gregorio Araneta, Inc's Agricultural Division. The Division was overcapitalized so the Board adopted a retrenchment policy to reduce costs by importing less merchandise and reducing credit. This required reducing the workforce. The selected employees were given separation pay except one. The court ruled the layoffs due to a legitimate retrenchment policy aimed at reducing overcapitalization, not targeting union activities, were not an unfair labor practice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-6846 July 20, 1955

    GREGORIO ARANETA EMPLOYEES UNION, ETC., ET AL., petitioners,


    vs.
    ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL., respondents.

    JUGO, J.:

    Facts:

    The Agricultural Division of the Gregorio Araneta, Inc., was established in 1947
    with a capital of P200,000. The total investment in that Division in 1953 was about
    P3,000,000. To reduce this overcapitalization, the Board of Directors felt that it was
    necessary either to invite fresh capital from outside or to adopt a retrenchment policy.
    When Heacock and Company refused the invitation to invest in the enterprise, the Board
    took the alternative of retrenchment.

    The Board decided not to import as much merchandise as usual. It also reduced credits.
    All these plans required a reduction in the volume of business necessitating likewise a
    reduction of personnel and caused the laying off of 17 employees. The selection of those
    to be laid off was made by a technical man and approved by the Board. These employees
    were given one month separation pay, except Nicolas Gonzalez who refused to receive it.

    The reorganization of the Agricultural Division was adopted by unanimous resolution of


    the Board of Directors as a consequence of the retrenchment policy. This was adopted
    even before the petitioner, "Gregorio Araneta Employees' Union", was organized and;
    consequently, it was never directed against the union.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the retrenchment made by the employer can be categorized as unfair


    labor practice?

    Ruling:

    The laying off of employees due to the retrenchment policy adopted by a


    company in order to reduce the overcapitalization and minimize expenses and as a
    consequence the volume of business is considerably reduced particularly when it is not
    aimed at the Union or any of its members for union or labor activities, is not an unfair
    labor practice.

    You might also like