Republic of the Philippines “Ly 9,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES , RECEIVED 2

Quezon City ve CATEYAN 25 2021 <
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

HOUSE BILL no, 8482

Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR.

AN ACT
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 ALSO KNOWN
AS THE LABOR CODE, ART. 248, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR EMPLOYERS TO
THREATEN TO CONTRACT OUT SERVICES BEING PERFORMED
BY UNION MEMBERS

The Presidential Decree No. 442, also known as the Labor Code, Article 248, makes it
an unfair labor practice for employees “to contract out services or functions being
performed by union members...”. Clearly, the provision does not cover situations where
employers merely threaten to contract out services being performed by the latter. A threat
has the same coercive effect as actually contracting out services as it instills fear in the
laborer of losing his job.

This bill extends the protection of Article 248 by making it unlawful for employers to
threaten to contract out services being performed by union members.

iL Al

LUIS RAYM) “LRAY” ILLAFUERTE, JR.


Republic of the Philippines:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

HOUSE BILL no8 462

Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR.

AN ACT
AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442 ALSO KNOWN
AS THE LABOR CODE, ART. 248, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR EMPLOYERS TO
THREATEN TO CONTRACT OUT SERVICES BEING PERFORMED
BY UNION MEMBERS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. P.D. No. 448 also known as the Labor Code, Article 248, is amended by

deleting paragraph (c) and replacing it with a new paragraph to read as follows:

“(c) TO PROMISE, TO THREATEN, OR TO TAKE OTHER ACTION (1) TO HIRE A

PERMANENT REPLACEMENT OR AN EMPLOYEE WHO

(A) AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ALABOR DISPUTE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE

EMPLOYER IN ABARGAINING UNIT WHICH ALABOR ORGANIZATION —

(l) WAS THE CERTIFIED OR RECOGNIZED EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE; OR

(il) AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
DISPUTE HAD FILED APETITION FOR CERTIFICATION ELECTION PURSUANT
TO ARTICLES 256 AND 257 OF THIS CODE, AND THE BUREAU OF LABOR
RELATIONS HAS NOT COMPLETED THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING;
AND

“(B) IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DISPUTE HAS ENGAGED IN CONCERTED

ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER

MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION OR DENY ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT RIGHT OR

PRIVILEGE TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS WORKING FOR OR HAS

UNCONDITIONALLY OFFERED TO RETURN TO WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER, OUT

OF APREFERENCE FOR ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS BASED ON THE FACT

THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS PERFORMING, HAS PERFORMED, OR HAS INDICATED A

WILLLINGNESS TO PERFORM BARGAINING UNIT WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER


DURING THE LABOR DISPUTE.”

SECTION 2. Separability Clause. — If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall
remain valid and subsisting.

SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. — Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive
order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to, or
inconsistent with, the provision of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended

accordingly.

SECTION 4. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,