Practice question
A firm cites Sime Darby to impose an inferior roster only on union organizers doing the same work as favored nonmembers. Documents establish an intent to penalize organizing, and no legitimate distinction is shown. Does the precedent conclusively validate the roster?
- Yes; scheduling power authorizes any motive
- No; its uniform-treatment and good-faith reasoning does not authorize an anti-union device
- Yes; organizers have no scheduling protection
- Yes; a memorandum defeats all discrimination evidence
- Yes; the precedent abolished self-organization rights
Legal references
- Sime Darby Pilipinas v. NLRC, GR 119205, April 15, 1998, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/apr1998/gr_119205_1998.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.