Unfair labor practice (ULP) is one of the most frequently tested topics in Labor Relations for the 2026 Bar Examinations. It requires precise identification of statutory violations, application of the two-element test, and recognition of how specific acts interfere with workers’ constitutional rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. Mastery of its definition, the exact enumerated acts, landmark doctrines, and common exceptions will allow you to score high on essay questions that present factual scenarios involving employer or union conduct.

Core Legal Basis and Definition

The primary legal basis is Article 247 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (as amended), which declares the concept of unfair labor practice:

Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.

Consequently, ULPs are not only civil wrongs but also criminal offenses against the State. The civil aspects (including claims for actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and other affirmative relief) fall under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters, who must give utmost priority to these cases and resolve them within thirty (30) calendar days from submission for decision. Recovery of civil liability in administrative proceedings bars recovery under the Civil Code. No criminal prosecution may be instituted without a prior final judgment in the administrative proceeding finding that a ULP was committed. The running of the prescriptive period for the criminal offense is interrupted during the pendency of the administrative case.

The specific prohibited acts that constitute ULP are exhaustively enumerated in Article 248 (for employers) and Article 249 (for labor organizations). An act not falling within these enumerations, no matter how unfair it may appear, does not constitute ULP.

Essential Requisites / Elements / Components

For an act or omission to constitute unfair labor practice, two essential elements must concur (established doctrine consistently applied by the Supreme Court):

There must exist an employer-employee relationship between the offender and the offended party.
The act complained of must be one of those expressly enumerated and defined in Article 248 or Article 249 of the Labor Code as constitutive of ULP.

Unfair Labor Practices of Employers (Article 248)

It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following:

(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization.
(b) To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs.
(c) To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization.
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it or its organizers or supporters.
(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. (This includes the valid provisos on union security and agency fees discussed below.)
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code.
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code.
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute.
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

Only the officers and agents of corporations, associations or partnerships who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified the ULP shall be held criminally liable.

Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations (Article 249)

It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives to commit any of the following:

(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. (However, a labor organization has the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership.)
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members.
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees.
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed, including the demand for fee for union negotiations.
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute.
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

Only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified the ULP shall be held criminally liable.

Landmark Supreme Court Doctrines

Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. (G.R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971): In determining whether an employer has committed ULP through interference, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of the right to self-organization, the totality of the employer’s conduct—not isolated acts or statements—must be considered. The overall pattern and effect on employees’ free exercise of rights is controlling.
Mabeza v. NLRC (G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997) (and consistent line of cases): Before an employer or labor organization may be held liable for ULP, both the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the commission of an act specifically enumerated in Article 248 or 249 must be proven. An act that is merely “unfair” but not listed in the Code does not constitute ULP.
Kiok Loy v. NLRC (G.R. No. 54334, January 22, 1986): Surface bargaining—going through the motions of negotiation without a sincere intention to reach an agreement—constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain collectively and is therefore ULP under Article 248(g). Good-faith hard bargaining, however, is not ULP.

Key Exceptions, Qualifications, and Distinctions

Union security clauses and agency fees (Art. 248(e) provisos): Parties may validly agree to require membership in the recognized bargaining agent as a condition of employment (closed shop or union shop), except for employees who are already members of another union at the time the CBA is signed. Non-union members in the bargaining unit who accept CBA benefits may be assessed a reasonable agency (or “fair share”) fee equivalent to union dues and fees. The individual written authorization required for check-off under Article 242(o) does not apply to these non-members. These arrangements do not constitute ULP.
Contracting out (Art. 248(c)): Not all contracting out is ULP. It becomes ULP only when it interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of their self-organization rights. Legitimate business decisions without anti-union purpose or effect are not ULP.
Internal union matters (Art. 249(a)): A labor organization may validly prescribe its own rules on acquisition or retention of membership. Such rules, even if restrictive, do not constitute ULP.
Criminal liability: Strictly personal to officers/agents who actually participated in, authorized, or ratified the ULP. The corporation or union itself bears only civil liability.
Distinction from other concepts: Not every violation of law or CBA is ULP. Simple labor standards violations (e.g., non-payment of wages) or ordinary contract breaches are not ULP unless they fall under a specific enumeration (particularly discrimination under (e) or CBA violation under (i)). Illegal dismissal for union-related reasons is both illegal dismissal (with reinstatement and backwages) and ULP. Gross violations of the CBA are treated as ULP and fall under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.

How This Topic Appears in Bar Essay Questions

Examiners commonly present detailed factual scenarios and ask: (1) Does the described act/s constitute ULP? (2) By the employer or the labor organization? (3) Cite the specific article and subsection. (4) What liabilities or remedies arise?

Typical patterns include:

Firing or constructively dismissing a union organizer or sympathizer (tests (e) or (f), plus totality of conduct and motive).
Contracting out bargaining-unit work shortly after a union files a petition for certification election or during CBA negotiations (tests (c) and anti-union purpose/effect).
Employer threats, surveillance, or promises of benefits to discourage unionization (tests (a) and (b); totality doctrine applies).
During CBA talks, the employer pays the union’s attorney or negotiation fees (tests (h)).
Union causing the employer to dismiss non-striking or expelled members (tests Art. 249(b)).
Refusal to bargain in good faith or surface bargaining (tests (g) or Art. 249(c)).

Common pitfalls to avoid: Citing the wrong article or letter; concluding ULP exists without matching the act to the exact enumeration; ignoring the two-element test; overlooking the union-security/agency-fee provisos in (e); assuming every CBA violation automatically equals ULP without reference to the specific provision; and failing to discuss both civil (LA) and potential criminal aspects.

Best answer structure: State the governing rule and codal basis first (Art. 247 definition + specific act in 248/249), apply the two elements to the facts, discuss any applicable exception or doctrine (e.g., totality of conduct), then state the consequences and liabilities. Quote or closely paraphrase the relevant codal language for precision and higher scoring.

Practical Application Tips

In essays, always cite the specific subsection (e.g., “Article 248(e)”) — this demonstrates mastery and earns points.
For interference or discrimination cases, argue the totality of conduct and infer anti-union animus or effect from timing, pattern, and surrounding circumstances.
Distinguish hard bargaining (protected) from surface bargaining (ULP).
Remember that ULP by the employer justifies a strike even in the absence of a CBA; ULP by the union may expose it to liability for damages.

Key Takeaways

ULP is defined in Article 247 as a violation of the constitutional right to self-organization that is inimical to both labor and management and constitutes both a civil wrong and a criminal offense.
Two indispensable elements: (1) employer-employee relationship and (2) the act must be one expressly listed in Article 248 (employers) or Article 249 (labor organizations).
The specific prohibited acts are exhaustive; acts outside the enumeration are not ULP regardless of how unfair they seem.
Totality of conduct doctrine governs determination of interference, restraint, or coercion.
Key qualifications: Valid union security clauses and agency fees under Article 248(e) provisos; contracting out is ULP only if it produces the prohibited effect; criminal liability is limited to participating officers/agents.
In Bar essays, structure answers by stating the rule with codal basis first, matching facts to the exact provision, applying the two elements and relevant doctrines, and concluding with liabilities. Precision in citing the specific article and subsection is essential for high scores.