Art277 and up Azucena Notes on Labor Relations

Art277 (263) – Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts (a)Policy of the state to encourage free trade unionism & free collective bargaining (c) In cases of Bargaining deadlocks  duly recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike (NS)  ER may file a notice of lockout With the Ministry; atleast 30 days b4 intended date In cases of ULP – period of notice is 15days in the absence of duly recognized bargaining agent, any LLO may file NS In cases of dismissal fr EET of union officers which may constitute union busting where existence of union is threatened - 15day cooling off period shall not apply; union may take action immediately (e) During cooling-off period – duty of Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation & conciliation to effect voluntary settlement If dispute remains unsettled (until lapse of period) – LU may strike or ER may declare lockout (f) Decision to declare a strike - approved by majority of total union membership in BU Obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose Decision to declare a lockout – approved by majority of Board of Directors or corp, assoc or partners in a partnership Note: decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when strike/lockout vote was taken Union or ER shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting (Strike Vote Report) atleast 7days b4 intended strike/lockout subj to the cooling period (g) When in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest - SoLE may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and 1. Decide it; or 2. Certify the same to NLRC for compulsory arbitration Effect (assumption or certification): - automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike/lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order If one has already taken place at the time of assumption/certification - all striking or locked out EEs shall immediately return to work & ER shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under same terms & conditions of EET prevailing b4 strike/lockout

Aglosolos_LabRelNotes2017

Strikes/lockouts in hospitals – duty of striking union or locking out ER to provide and maintain a skeletal workforce SoLE is mandated to immediately assume within 24hrs fr knowledge of occurrence of such strike/lockout; jurisdiction over the same or certify it to NLRC for compulsory arbitration President is not precluded fr determining industries that in his opinion are indispensable to the natl interest & fr intervening at any time & assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute to settle or terminate it (h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process - parties may opt to submit their dispute to VAion (i) SoLE, NLRC or VA – decide or resolve the dispute within 30 calendar days fr 1. date of assumption of jurisdiction or 2. certification or submission of the dispute As the case may be Decision of Pres, SoLE, NLRC or VA – final & executory 10 calendar days after receipt by parties Art 278 (264) – Prohibited Activities (a) No LO or ER shall declare a strike or lockout – 1. without 1st having bargain collectively or 2. without the necessary strike or lockout vote report 1st having been obtained & reported to Ministry No strike or lockout shall be declared 1. after assumption of jurisdiction by Pres or Ministry (SoLE?) or 2. after certification or submission of dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration, or 3. during pendency of cases involving same grounds for strike/lockout ANY worker whose EET has been terminated as a consequence of an unlawful strike or lockout – entitled to: 1. Reinstatement 2. with full backwages Union officer – knowingly participates in an illegal strike* Any worker or union officer – knowingly participates in commission of illegal acts during a strike* *may be declared (by ER?) to have lost his EET status Mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike – not sufficient ground for termination of his EET even if a replacement had been hired by ER during such lawful strike (b; c & d) – refer to CODAL (e) No person engaged in picketing shall:

Page 1

1. commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation (VCI); or 2. obstruct the free ingress or egress fr ER’s premises for lawful purposes, or 3. obstruct public thoroughfares The Right to engage in concerted activities Art 13 Sec3 Consti – guarantee RTSO, CB and negotiation, peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in acc with law* *means that State can enact reasonable laws which can expand or even diminish the coverage of the right to strike Concerted Activity by one Concerted – when an activity is planned & accomplished by people acting together Instances may arise when an individual acting alone may be deemed engaged in concerted activity – if EE is seeking to induce group activity or is acting as representative Concerted activity (jurisprudentially defined) – one undertaken by 2 or more EEs or by 1 on behalf of others Nature of strike Strike (defined) – cessation of work by EEs in an effort to get more favorable terms for themselves or as a concerted refusal by EEs to do any work for their ER or to work at their customary rate of speed until object of strike is attained by ER’s granting the demanded concession Strike Defined by Art212(o) - any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of EEs as a result of an industrial or labor dispute A strike may be legally held because of either or both: 1. CB deadlock 2. ULP act of ER Characteristics (of Strike) 1. With established relationship bet strikers & person/s against whom strike is called 2. must be ER-EE relationship 3. existence of a dispute 4. EET relationship is deemed to continue 5. temporary work stoppage 6. thru concerted action of EEs 7. striking group is LLO; in case of bargaining deadlock EEs sole bargaining representative Basic Objective A strike is a coercive activity resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands Strikers by going on strike seek to interrupt & paralyze the business & production of the company Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company, it does frequently give in to demands of strikers to maintain continuity of its production


Constitutional Status On July 17, 1953 Congress gave statutory recognition to the right to strike when it enacted RA 875 (Industrial Peace Act) *Right to strike was prohibited on Sept 21, 1972 upon declaration of martial law 1987 Consti; Art13 Social Justice & Human Rights (see p.1) – consti imprimatur given to the right to strike 1935 & 1973 Consti did not accord consti status to the right to strike RA 6715 (March 21, 1989) – law implementing right to strike Note: Consti recognition of right to strike serve as a reminder that injunctions should be reduced at barest minimum (bernas) Nature and Definition of lockout (by ER) Lockout – temporary refusal of any ER to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute; an ER’s act excluding EEs who are union members fr the plant Strike & lockout – similar; 1. connote temporary work stoppage 2. occur because of & in relation to a labor or industrial dispute involving the parties Diff – identity of doer; strike(done by EEs or labor union) while lockout(by ER) Lockout is an act directed at the union itself not at individual EE-members of union; in a lockout dismissal is in discipline of union itself Grounds for strike/lockout 1. CB deadlock 2.ULP act DO no 40-03 amended by DO 40A-03 Violations of CBAs except flagrant & malicious refusal to comply with economic provisions – not ULP; non-strikable No strike or lockout may be declared on 1. grounds involving inter-union & intra-union dispute 2. without 1st having files NS or lockout 3. without the necessary strile/lockout vote having been obtained & reported to the board (NCMB?) Not declare strike 1. after assumption of jurisdiction by SoLE or 2. Certification or submission of dispute to compulsory or VA-ion or 3. during pendency of cases involving same grounds for strike/lockout GR - Like strike, lockout not subj to labor injunctions E – cases or for reasons specified such as

Page 2

1. natl interest cases, 2. Prohibited acts under Art278 are being committed Requisites of a valid lockout 1. Notice of intention to declare a strike/lockout filed with DOLE 2. atleast 30days elapsed since filing of the notice b4 lockout is declared 3. Impasse has resulted in the negotiations 4. strike/lockout is not discriminatory ER may lockout his EEs to protect his bargaining positions after an impasse occurs in nego or b4 In ULP ER should show that he is merely protecting his bargaining positions & not acting out of hostility or discriminating against union members A lockout is valid where in the course of labor dispute; undertaken as defensive weapon in pursuance of ERs interest Kinds of Strike 1. Extent a. General strike – extends over a whole community, province, state or country; extended form of symphatetic strike involving many workers who cease to work in sympathy with workers of another ER or to put pressure upon govt or paralyze present economic & social systems b. Local strike –undertaken by workers in a particular enterprise, locality or occupation 2. Nature of the Act a. Strike proper b. Sit-down strike – when a group of EEs or others interested in obtaining a certain objective in a particular business; forcibly take over possession of the property of such business establish themselves within the plant, stop its production and refuse access to owners or to others desiring to work; taking over of possession by EEs; element of trespass by strikers upon ppty of ER & refusal to permit it to be operated c. Partial or quickie strike – intermittent, unannounced work stoppage including slowdowns, unauthorized extension of rest periods & walk outs for portion or entire shifts Sometimes used interchangeably with wildcat strike – work stoppage that violates the labor contract & is not authorized by the union *slowdown – willful reduction in the rate of work by a group of EEs for purpose of restricting output of ER 3. Degree of EE interest a. Primary strike – declared by EEs who have a direct & immediate interest; refers to an original or initial strike (strike waged by union primarily aggrieved) b. Secondary strike –exists where EEs in concert refuse to remain at work for ER because he persist in dealing with a 3rd person against whom they have a grievance; attempt to secure


economic assistance of ER to compel this 3 rd person to capitulate top the union over some issue bet them c. Sympathetic strike 4. Purpose or Nature of EE Interest a. Economic Strike – intended to force wage & other concessions fr ER which he is not required by law to grant *also known as bargaining strike – designed to enforce union position on bargainable issues; Striking EEs have no intention to sever EET relations with ER except temporarily for duration of strike although ER is free to replace them if he can Note: Strikes are presumed to be economic than ULP b. ULP strike – called against ULP of ER; purpose to make him desist fr further committing such practice A valid strike needs a labor dispute - strike can validly take place only in the presence of & in relation to a labor dispute bet ER & EEs involved Strike defined Art 219(o) - any temporary stoppage of work by concerted action of ERs as a result of an industrial or labor dispute Strike is recognized & protected only if the work stoppage is brought about by disagreements regarding terms & conditions of EET or ways to arrange or adjust it Note: Where there is 1. no dispute or 2. Dispute has nothing to do with terms & conditions of EET; stoppage of work by its EEs has no basis; illegal strike Natl Union of workers in hotels v. NLRC(1998) - alleged acts of hotel were not ULP hence not strikeable; upheld dismissal of 15 officers who knowingly participated in the strike ER may lawfully discharge EEs for participating in an unjustifiable wildcat strike Sympathetic strike Valid strike presupposes labor dispute; it follows that sympathetic strike is illegal Sympathetic striking – EEs have no demands or grievances of their own but strike for the purpose of directly or indirectly aiding others without relation to advancement of interest of strikers - (Defined) stoppage of work to make common cause with other strikers in other est/companies without existence of any labor dispute bet striking EEs & their own ER Strike is illegal unless there exists a labor dispute bet ER & striking EEs Welga ng Bayan (Peoples Strike)

Page 3

- in nature of a general strike; extended sympathetic strike - EEs who have no labor dispute with ER but who on the day they are supposed to work, refuse to work to join a welga ng bayan are committing illegal work stoppage Note: In the realm of political freedom, general strike may be defensible But at the enterprise level, EEs absence fr work to join a general strike is unexcused absence In relation to ER, EEs absence is illegal & actionable work stoppage because stoppage is not due to existing labor/industrial dispute bet said EEs & ER Avoidance of strike - by requiring EEs to exhaust available means of settling dispute without resort to strike Strikers & other coercive acts are deemed justified only when peaceful alternatives have proved unfruitful in settling dispute Disregarding grievance procedure or refusal to submit arbitrable issue to VA-ion may justify a conclusion that strike was held prematurely hence illegal

2. EEs may not be discriminated against because they exercised right to strike 3. Use of strike-breakers is prohibited 4. Mere participation in a strike does not sever EET relationship Art 278 (c) provides that no ER shall employ an strike-breaker nor shall any person be employed as strike-breaker Strike-breaker – a person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful picketing by EEs during any labor controversy Note: EEs who peacefully struck for a lawful object were not liable to their ER (for damages) Strikers could not use unlawful means; unless strikers methods or objects were illegal, ER had no cause of action for damage to his business fr the strike Striking EEs may persuade or advise others to quit work & join strikes, so long as contractual rights are not invaded Right to strike includes right to use peaceable & lawful means to induce present & expectant EEs to join ranks of strikers

Conciliation, Mediation, Compromise to avoid strike An issue awaiting resolution in arbitration proceedings, whether compulsory or voluntary cannot serve as basis of stike To resort to strike despite ongoing arbitration is an act amounting to sabotage of a peaceful conciliatory process NCMB upon request of either or both parties or upon its own initiative, provide conciliationmediation services to labor disputes other than strikes or lockouts

Role of the Police Involvement of AFP/PNP limited to: 1. maintenance of peace & order 2. enforcement of laws & legal orders of duly constituted authorities 3. performance of specific functions as may be provided by law Not station in the picket but on such that their presence may deter commission of criminal acts fr either side; 50meter radius fr picket lines except if 50m includes a public thoroughfare (may station there)

Any compromise settlement including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by parties with the issuance of the Board (NCMB?) shall be final & binding upon the parties NLRC or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except 1. in case of non-compliance thereof or 2. if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion

Any person who obstructs the free ingress/egress fr ERs premises or who obstructs public thoroughfare may be arrested & charged in court Art278 does not prohibit a worker fr working in place of strikers

Premature Strike - unjustified, unreasonable hence illegal Union of the Phil. Education EEs v. PECO (1952) – SC laid down the rule that until all the remedies & negotiations toward the adjustment & settlement of labor disputes have been exhausted, the law does not look with favour upon resort to radical measures Protection of Strikes 1. GR – not subj to labor injuction or restraining order


Status of strikers Relationship bet ER & EE is not necessarily terminated by a strike; although they cease to work EE intend to retain their position SC holds that the declaration of a strike does not amount to renunciation of EET relation A strike does not itself terminate the relation of ER & EE Notion of striking EE During strike, ER-EE relationship is not terminated but merely suspended as the work stoppage is not permanent but only temporary Striking EE is still as EE (see definition of EE in Art 219f)

Page 4

EEs status during a strike remains but the effects of EET are suspended, hence a striking EE as a rule is not entitled to his wage during the strike Retention by striking EE of their EE status has 2 main consequences: 1. ERs obligation to bargain collectively inGF with his EEs continues notwithstanding the fact that EEs are on strike 2. ER is under an obligation to reinstate striking EEs upon termination of strike, without discriminating against those more actively engaged in union activity Legality of strike: the 6 factors affecting legality: Right to strike – workers are able to press their demands for better terms of EET; conducted peacefully Any violation of legal requirements such as defiance of return-to-work order in industries affected with public interest will render strike illegal Illegal strike is one which is: 1. contrary to specific prohibition of law (Ex. Strike by EEs performing govt’al functions) 2. violates a specific reqt of law 3. declared for an unlawful purpose (Ex. Induce ER to commit ULP against non-union EEs) 4. EEs unlawful means in pursuit of its objective 5. declared in violation of existing injunction 6. contrary to existing agreement (Ex. No-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause) * the 6 categories of strike applied by SC in Toyota case(2007) 6 Factors in legality of strike *Explained 1st factor. Statutory Prohibition - govt Es have right to organize but no right to strike ( a strike held by them is an illegal strike) SSEA v. CA(1989) – Govt EEs may 1. petition to Congress for betterment of terms & conditions of EET which are within the ambit of legislation 2. negotiate with appropriate govt agencies for improvement of those not fixed by law Any unresolved grievances refer dispute to PSLMC But EEs in the civil service may not resort to strikes, walkouts & other temporary work stoppages to pressure the govt to accede to their demands Terms & conditions of EET in govt including PS,I, GOCCs with orig charters are governed by law; EEs shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes thereof RTSO shall not be denied to govt EEs Bill of rights – right to form association or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged If purpose of the state is to prohibit strikes fr EEs exercising govt functions; it could be done because the moment it is prohibited union which will go on strike will be an illegal union


Alliance of Govt workers v. MoLE - furnishes rationale for distinguishing bet workers in private sector & govt EEs with the right to strike GR – terms & conditions of EEt in the govt are governed by law Since terms & conditions of govt EET are fixed by law, govt workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions fr their ER The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured thru compulsion of law In govt EET – it is the legislature & where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of govt which fix the terms & conditions of EET; & this is effected thru statutes or admin circulars, R&R not thru CBA Bangalisan v. CA (1997) - issue of WON mass action launched by public school teachers was a strike  In Manila Public School Teaschers Assoc v. Laguio held that fr pleaded & admitted facts, those mass actions were to all intents & purposes a strike; constituted concerted & unauthorized stoppage of absence fr work which it was the teacher’s duty to perform In the absence of statute, public EEs do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages for any purpose Settled rule that EEs in the public service may not engage in strike While the consti recognizes the right of govt EEs to organize, they are prohibited fr staging strikes, which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service The right of govt EEs to organize is limited only to formation of unions or assoc without including right to strike GR – even in the absence of express statutory prohibition, like CSC MC no 6, public EEs are denied the right to strike or engage in a work stoppage against public ER 2nd factor. Procedural Requirements A strike/lockout to enjoy the protection of law must observe certain procedural requisites (Art277) 1. Filing of a notice of strike 2. Observance of cooling off period 3. Taking of strike vote 4. Observance of 7Day strike vote report period These requirements are mandatory; noncompliance makes strike illegal Intention of the law in requiring the NS & SVR is to reasonably regulate the right to strike Officers of the union who participated in illegal strike are deemed to have lost their EET status Notice of strike (NS)

Page 5

NS or lockout should be filed with DOLE specifically Regl branch of NCMB copy furnished ER & union as the case may be Who files a notice of strike? -Only registered LLO can legally hold a strike If reason is ULP by ER, notice should be filed by duly recognized or certified bargaining agent If reason is bargaining deadlock, only the bargaining union file a NS Note: a union instead of filing a NS may request NCMB to do a preventive mediation but the union has to be certified or duly recognized bargaining agent Contents of notice Strike notice shall state: 1. Names & addresses of ER & union involved 2. Nature of industry ER belongs 3. No. of union members & of workers in BU 4. Other relevant data In cases of bargaining deadlock, notice shall further state the unresolved issues in bargaining nego, accompanied by written proposals of union & counter-proposals of ER In cases of ULP, state acts complained of & efforts taken to resolve dispute amicably Cooling-off period Time gap bet the filing of notice & actual execution of strike/lockout 30days – bargaining deadlock 15days – ULP Union busting not req to observe NCMB upon receipt of NS & during cooling off period, mediates & conciliates the parties Parties are obliged to participate fully & promptly in conciliation meetings A strike/lockout notice upon agreement of the parties, may be referred to alternative modes of dispute reso, including voluntary arbitration Strike Vote (SV) Before a strike or lockout may actually be started, a strike/lockout vote should be taken by secret balloting, in meetings or referenda specially called for the purpose Union or ER shall furnish the reg’l branch of NCMB notice of meetings atleast 24hrs before such meetings as well as results of the voting atleast 7days b4 intended strike/lockout subject to cooling-off period Decision to declare a strike requires secret ballot approval of majority of total union membership in BU concerned It is majority of union membership not of BU Members of minority union may or may not be called to SV meeting


Purpose of strike vote is to ensure that decision to strike rests with majority of union members SVR submitted to NCMB atleast 7days prior to intended date of strike ensures that SV was taken The 15/30day cooling-off period designed to afford parties opportunity to amicably 7day strike ban is intended to give DOLE opportunity to verify whether projected strike really carries the imprimatur of union members Needed vote is 50% plus 1 of the total membership Lockout needs the secret ballot concurrence of majority of directors or partners Strike Vote Report (SVR) Result of the strike or lockout voting should be reported to NCMB atleast 7days b4 intended strike or lockout subj to cooling off period - means that after strike vote is taken and result reported to NCMB, 7days must pass b4 union can commence the strike A strike held within 7day waiting period is illegal Strike held without submission of result of strike vote is illegal The requirement of giving notice of conduct of strike vote to NCMB atleast 24hrs b4 meeting is designed to: 1. inform NCMB of intent of union to conduct a strike vote 2. give NCMB time to deice WON there is need to supervise 3. should NCMB decide to supervise; ample time to prepare Failure of a union to comply with the requirement of giving notice to NCMB atleast 24hrs prior to holding of a strike vote meeting will render subsequent strike staged by union illegal Q: When should the strike vote be taken? (within or outside cooling off period) A - If the Strike vote is filed within the coolingoff period; the7day requirement shall be counted fr the day ff expiration of cooling-off period; 7 days are added to the 15 or 30day cooling-off period Declaration of strike or lockout - dispute remains unsettled after lapse of cooling-off period & 7day reporting period; labor union may strike or ER may lock out Procedural requirements, mandatory: Nonobservance makes strike illegal Case #12 – NSFW v. Ovejera (1982) (a) mandatory periods; language of law Cooling-off period and 7day strike ban after SVR should be deemed mandatory Although labor union may take a strike vote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off period

Page 6

(b) Purposes of strike notice & SVR Notice of Strike (NS) and a cooling-off period – intent of law is to provide opportunity for mediation & conciliation (to effect a voluntary settlement during the cooling-off period) 7day strike vote report Submission of SVR gives assurance that strike vote has been taken & if report is false; majority of members can still remedy b4 it is too late (c)Waiting period after Strike Notice and SVR, valid regulation of right to strike - cooling-off period & 7days strike ban after filing of SVR are reasonable restrictions; imposition essential to attain legitimate state policy objectives embodied in law; valid exercise of State’s police power Case #36 – Gold City Integrated Port Services Inc. v. NLRC (1995) - pets EEs stopped working & gathered in a mass action; on the same morning strikers filed individual notices of strike; Strike illegal for not having complied with formal requirements Art 278 par c & f Case #18 – Union of Filipro EEs v. Nestle (1990) - illegality of strikes & dismissal of complainants upheld 1. strike staged illegal in violation of CBA no strike/no lockout clause & conclusive arbitration clause 2. UFE went on strike instead of exhausting all steps provided in grievance machinery in the CBA 3. mandatory cooling-off period & 7day strike ban after submission of SVR not complied; no NS filed 4. Strike was carried out with coercion, force, intimidation, violence with pgysical injuries, sabotage, use of unnecessary force & obscene language 5. Strike on the day filed NS Strike on Installment: Work Slowdown and Overtime Boycott Interphil case(2001) – strike was in form of OT boycott & work slowdown which can be classified as strike on an installment basis Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa v. NLRC - Court in substantial agreement with pets concept of slowdown as a strike on the installment plan as willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for purpose of restricting output of ER, in relation to a labor dispute, as an activity which worker without a complete stoppage of work retard production or their performance of duties & functions to compel mgt to grant their demands Slowdown is illicit & unjustifiable In case of union busting


Where ER trying to bust union; union is the victim; N/A cooling off period reqt in case of union busting Union Busting (Elements) 1. Union officers are being dismissed 2. Officers are duly elected in acc with union CBL 3. Existence of union is threatened If union is being busted, no need to observe cooling off period but union must still file Notice of strike, take strike vote & submit SVR (mandatory even in union busting) NCMB Primer on Strike, Picketing, Lockout (1992) Time reqt for filing of NS shall be dispensed with but strike vote reqt being mandatory in character shall in every case be complied with Alleged union busting – 3 remaining reqts 1. NS; 2. Strike vote; 3. 7day report period, cannot be dispensed with Totality of conduct doctrine – an act to be characterized as ULP should be viewed not in isolation but in connection with collateral circumstances B4 organization take into a strike because of alleged union busting by ER, union officers should notify NCMB & consul general membership Strike During Arbitration, Illegal Filsyn EEs Chapter v. Drilon (1989) - MoLE certified labor dispute to NLRC for compulsory arbitration; while conciliation meetings were still pending union officers & members did not report for work Held – certification of dispute to NLRC for compulsory arbitration had the effect of enjoining intended strike subj of notices Concerted action in not reporting for work when they were supposed to render work on those days acc to work sched & during pendency of compulsory arbitration proceedings on certified labor dispute constituted an illegal strike Another case – Court held that no strike/lockout can be declared while a case is pending involving same grounds for strike/lockout Sukholai Cuisine v. CA(2006) – strike was declared illegal due to union’s failure to exhaust all in the steps of arbitration proceedings; fully aware of such cannot claim good faith as a defense However, if after decision declaring strike illegal new demands/matters arise not in connection/similar to former decision & laborers strike anew; new strike not a violation of decision (provided procedural reqts complied) Strike despite preventive mediation Mediation – process of resolving disputes with aid of a neutral person the mediator; who helps

Page 7

identify issues & develop proposals to resolve their disputes - NCMB manual enunciates it as a remedy to prevent or resolve disputes whether strikeable or not Note: Preventive mediation can be initiated simply by a letter-request Info discovered in mediation is inadmissible in court; party cannot use info gathered in mediation against other party & mediator cannot be subpoenaed to reveal what transpired in mediation Case #11 – PAL v. SoLE (1991) Mediator advised PALEA that issues raised in NS are not valid grounds for a lawful strike; PALEA declared a strike; SoLE assumed jurisdiction Held – SC held nullified SoLEs order insofar as it declared valid PALEA strike & restrained PAL fr taking appropriate legal actions against PALEA officers & members who led the strike PAL strike was illegal for 3 reasons: 1. premature; CBA still had 9 months to run 2. violated no strike provision of CBA 3. NCMB had declared the NS as appropriate for preventive mediation * effect of declaration was to drop the case fr docket of NS; as if no NS During the pendency of mediation proceedings, no strike could be legally declared Since the strike was illegal, PAL has a right to take disciplinary action against union officers who took part & union members who committed illegal acts Under Art 277 (263) SoLE may enjoin holding of strike but not company’s right to take appropriate legal actions Violation of a valid Order - equivalent to violation or disobedience of an order of court, strike illegal Grievance procedure bypassed Stipulation of no strike no lockout; until grievance is resolved by proper court if not settled thru a grievance procedure - legality of such stipulation upheld in Liberal LU v. Phil Can; CBA stipulated that if laborer had a complaint should 1st be resolved by a grievance committee; if decision not satisfactory refer to top officials of union & ER; submit to CIR if not settled Another case – strike was illegal because union did not adhere to procedure (in settlement to prevent strike) agreed upon for settlement of disputes; must be followed in its entirety Agreement to exhaust all available means resorting resorting to force; strikes held in violation of terms in CBA are illegal esp when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses; these agreements must be strictly adhered to San Miguel Corp v. NLRC (2003)


- ER & union executed a CBA which they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance & arbitration proceedings; also included a no-strike no-lockout agreement NCMB director held that issues were nonstrikeable; NLRC issued a TRO directing free ingress/egress fr plant Ruling Art265 (254) LC provides that no injunction or RO shall be issued by any court except as otherwise provided in Art 266(e) – injunction may be used to restrain an actual or threatened strike unlawful strike & in Art 277(263) As held in PAL v. Drilon - after conversion of NS by NCMB into a preventive mediation, it is as if there was no notice of strike; & that during pendency of preventive mediation proceedings, no strike could be legally declared IBM went on strike despite lack of valid NS & despite pendency of mediation proceedings IBM after execution of MOA circulated fliers showing threats of commission of prohibited activities (ipa alala sa mgt na iniaatras ang NS at ano man oras pwede muli itirik ang picket lines); it was grave abuse of discretion on NLRC when it failed to grant pet for injunction Strikes held in violation of terms in CBA are illegal when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses; these agreements must be strictly adhered to Dismissal of EEs during conciliation; when legal and enforceable GTE Directories v. Sanchez (1991) – GTE terminated EET of 14 sales rep for failure to comply with reportorial reqts after several demands was made; during the time conciliation efforts were being exerted Ruling – Dismissal is valid; conciliation proceedings not validated ER has the prerogative to lay down basic policies and rules applicable to its EEs Filing of NS and commencement of conciliation activities by BLR did not operate to make GTEs orders illegal & unenforceable so as to excuse continued noncompliance therewith The overt, direct, deliberate & continued defiance & disregard by EEs of their ERs authority left ER with no other alternative except to impose sanctions 3rd factor. Economic and ULP strike 2 strikeable grounds 1. CB deadlock 2. ERs ULP A strike not based in any of these 2 causes are illegal Ex of nonstrikeable issues

Page 8

1. inter-union or intra-union disputes 2. violation of labor standards law 3. any issue involving wage distortion 4. cases pending at DOLE, BLR, NLRC, SoLE , VA, CA or SC 5. execution & enforcement of final orders in no.4 6. any issue covered by no strike commitment Strike on refusal to bargain or discriminatory discharge or any other sort of ULP by ER is called ULP strike Strike to force wage or other concessions fr ER which he is not required by law to grant is economic strike Distinguish the 2 – point on applicability of certain reqts or strikers right The conversion doctrine - strike may start fr economic to ULP Laid Law corp (US case) – Rule that strikers who are permanently replaced during economic phase of the strike are not entitled to immediate reinstatement while strikers replaced after date of conversion are Lawful purpose: Strike incident to CB Laborers have right thru concerted action by means of strike, to attempt to secure attainment of any lawful objects for the purpose of securing improvement in terms & conditions of labor Strikes for the ff purposes are illegal: 1. Procure commission of unlawful or criminal act 2. compel ER to join a boycott 3. overthrow the govt Bargaining deadlock SMC v. NLRC (1999) CB deadlock (defined) – situation bet labor & mgt where there is failure in CB negotiations resulting in a stalemate By failing to exhaust all steps in grievance machinery & arbitration proceedings in CBA; NS should have been dismissed by NLRC & ordered to proceed with GM & AP In abandoning grievance proceedings & refusing to avail of remedies under CBA, resp violated mandatory provisions of CBA; no ground to sustain NS Legality of strike not dependent upon ability of mgt to grant demands The demands that gave rise to strike may not be properly granted but that fact should not make said demands & the consequent strike illegal Lawful purpose: strike against ERs ULP Union busting or interference with formation of a union constitutes ULP act; a valid ground for declaration of strike Any ULP act uner Art 258 is strikeable


Davao Free workers Front v. CIR Pet union submitted bargaining proposals for renewal of CBA but mgt sponsored a organization of new LU & executed a CBA with it - strike valid; against ER ULP Philsteam v. PMOG (1965) Subjection by company of its EEs to a series of questionings regarding their membership in union or their union activities in such a way as to hamper exercise of free choice on their part constitutes ULP; PMOG strike was for a lawful purpose (interference with EEs RTSO) Lawful purpose: ULP strike in GF 2 tests in determining existence of ULP 1. Strike is declared in protest of ULP actually committed 2. Strike declared in protest of what union believed to be ULP committed by mgt & circumstances warranted such belief in GF although found subsequently not committed It is not even required that there be in fact ULP committed; it suffices a belief in GF by labor as inducing factor for staging a strike Management performed acts which strikers believed were ULP although they were not, the court ruled that the strike cannot be held illegal; however union’s belief needs some rational basis Ferrer v. CIR (1966) Mgt circularized EEs informing them of unions refusal to sign CBA (did not contain security clause as pressed in the negotiation) - strike not illegal; surrounding circumstances show that pet were reasonably justified in believing that mgt act is ULP although absolved fr ULP hence reinstatement must be without back pay Ferrer ruling reiterated in Norton & Harrison - former pres of union’s swift dismissal without required procedure; union & members reasonably led to believing that dismissal was predicated upon his union activities Since strike was in response to what it warranted in believing in GF to be ULP of mgt; ff. Ferrer ruling did not result in termination of striking members status as EEs; reinstatement without backwages The Good-Faith Strike Doctrine Retraced & Reiterated Case – strike may be considered legal when union believed that resp. company committed ULP & circumstances warranted such belief in GF, although subsequently allegations of ULP found untrue Ferrer Ruling upheld in Shell case(1971) where SC held that it is not even required that there be in fact ULP committed by ER; it suffices if such belief in GF is entertained by labor as inducing factor in staging a strike; strike not illegal strikers not lost their status as EEs

Page 9

Pepito v. SoLE (1980) – pets were entitled not only to reinstatement but also to backwages; strike was not illegal but was induced by honest belief that mgt committed ULP; thus cause of dismissal fr EET was nonexistent Pepsi-cola LU v. NLRC (1982) – pendency of election contest; winning union filed NS; Pepsi countered that it was willing to bargain but there was no yet final decision on appeal of losing union SC said that a strike does not automatically carry the stigma of illegality even if no ULP were committed by ER; belief in GF suffices as inducing factor in staging a strike Although strike in this case was illegal, no proof that all union members participated in illegal strike In Esso Phil case, the ones who deserve punishment are the officers of union who staged the strike in defiance of Med-A ruling Good-Faith Strike Doctrine applied even to a strike without prior notice & despite a No-strike clause Phil Metal Foundries v. CIR (1979) – company assailed legality of strike on ground that it was declared without prior notice & in violation of nostrike clause of CBA SC declared strike legal – when union declared a strike in the belief that dismissal of Baylon was due to his union activities, said strike was not illegal (belief in GF as inducing factor) & not a violation of no-strike clause. A no-strike clause prohibition in CBA applicable only to economic strikes Even Good-Faith strike requires a Rational Basis GF strike does not tolerate a groundless strike; does not excuse union’s non-presentation of substantial evidence to support allegation of ULP by ER Tiu v. NLRC (1997) – mgt issued guidelines to minimize OT expenses union did not submit any comment; when put into effect if filed NS Union gave no particulars then went on strike Held – NS contained general allegations that mgt committed ULP amounting to union busting IT is the union who had the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support its allegations GR – presumption of legality of strike prevails even if allegations of ULP are subsequently found out to be untrue But in this case, the facts & evidence did not establish even a rational basis. It is not enough that union believed that ER committed ULP when circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such belief Do the procedural reqts apply even to a ULP strike in GF? – YES! Mandatory NFL v. NLRC & Permex (1997) – union failed to comply with statutory reqts necessary for a valid


strike (no NS, SVR or 7day strike ban after SV; completely disregarded procedural steps); NFL asserts that strike can be declared legal for it was done in GF Held – RA 6715 (Mar 21, 1989) Reqts as the filing of NS, SV and notice to DOLE are mandatory in nature; thus even if union acted in GF in the belief that company was committing ULP; strike was illegal Lawful Purpose: Strike to compel Recognition of & Bargaining with majority union Caltex v. CIR (1972) – Assoc asked company for recognition as EBR; company asked position listings assoc did not submit; Assoc filed NS Held – SC held strike was legal; the strike was declared not just for purpose of gaining recognition but also for bargaining in BF by company & ULP committed by its officials; cannot be labeled unlawful Unlawful purpose: Strike for union recognition without having proven majority status The legal way to secure union reg is not thru strike but thru CE or VR by ERif no doubt as to unions majority status But where majority status of a union in not in doubt despite this ER still refuses to bargain (Caltex case above); the situation is ULP act by ER 3 Jurisdictional preconditions to CB: 1. possession of majority status 2. proof of majority representation 3. demand to bargain If any or all these preconditions are not present, it will be premature for a union to hold a strike to compel bargaining AIUP, Densing et al v. Cenapro (1999) – CBA excluded casual EEs fr membership in incumbent union; formed an org & affiliated with AIUP filed NS Held – union recognition strike is calculated to compel ER to recognize one’s union as EBR to work out a CBA despite striking union’s doubtful majority status to merit VR & lack of formal certification as EBR At the time AIUP filed PCE there was an existing CBA; the petition should not have been entertained because of the contract-bar rule May a minority union strike? NO! Minority union cannot demand CB with ER; cannot lawfully undertake strike against ER, neither can it picket to compel bargaining After a union has been certified as EBR, a strike by a minority union to compel an ER to bargain with it is unlawful Although minority union cannot strike, it can engage in peaceful concerted activity short of strike & can file ULP complaint Strike held to compel recognition while case is unresolved

Page 10

Luzon Marine Devt Union v. Roldan (1950) – LMDU presented a petition to ER including recognition with right to CB; UOEF intervened claiming it was EBR. While proceedings b4 CIR was still unresolved LMDU declared a strike Held – strike was illegal Unlawful purpose: Trivial; Unjust or Unreasonable Under the law, during the pendency of an industrial dispute b4 CIR, ER cannot lay off much less dismiss petitioning EE without permission If a strike is declared for trivial, unjust or unreasonable purpose, or carried out thru unlawful means, court will declare it illegal The law’s protection withheld if the motive that impels, prompts, moves or leads members of LU or org to stage a strike be unlawful, ilegitimate, unjust, unreasonable, or trivial Illegal strike: Shaven-head strikers (kalbo) in toursist-class hotel Dusit Hotel v. CA (2008) – some male unions came to work sporting closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads; hotel terminated 29 union officers, 61 members & suspended others Held – unions violation of hotel’s grooming stds was clearly a deliberate & concerted action; not protected action; considered illegal strike Rule13 Sec6 IRR – prohibits commission of any act which will disrupt or impede early settlement of labor disputes under conciliation Since deadlock is being conciliated by NCMB, union officer/members action to heads shaved ws calculated to antagonize & embarrass hotel & in doing so effectively disrupted operations violated their duty to bargain collectively Strike to compel removal of an EE; Implied assertion of union infallibility Right to strike is subj to restriction that primary purpose must not be to injure an obnoxious EE & that refusal to work with another workman may not be for an arbitrary cause LDMU v. Roldan(1950) – held that a strike motivated by unreasonable demand demand of LU for dismissal of factory foreman is illegal & unjustified CLU v. Std Vacuum Oil(1955) – only objectionable feature of strike is unions peremptory demand on mgt to transfer V.Mauricio within 48hrs & its subsequent refusal to extend period; this implied unacceptable assertion of union infallibility Unlawful purpose: Strike on nonstrikeable issue Ex. Of nonstrikeable issues: 1. Physical rearrangement of office Reliance Surety v. NLRC (1991) – ER effected a change in seating arrangement in dept.; those affected protested claiming that change was without prior notice & done to harass them; court held that ER merely exercised reasonable prerogative EEs could not validly question


2. Company’s sales evaluation policy GTE v. Sanchez (1991) – ruling upon a similar issue in “ San Miguel v. Ople that company’s adoption of a new sales evaluation & production policy was within its mgt prerogative”; Until & unless the rules or orders are declared to be illegal or improper by competent authority EEs ignore or disobey them at their peril Promulgations of company policies are basic mgt prerogatives It is recognized principle of law that company policies & regulations are unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law; generally binding and valid on the parties & must be complied with until finally revised or amended unilaterally or thru nego(prefer) or by competent authorities 3. Salary distortion under the Wage rationalization act Ilaw at buklod Manggagawa v. NLRC (1991) – IBM presented a demand for correction of significant distortion in workers wage Held – legislative intent that solution of problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary nego or arbitration & not by strikes, lockouts or other concerted activities of EEs or mgt is made clear in IRR of RA 6727 The partial strike or concerted refusal by union members to follow their 5yr old work sched; resorted to as a means of coercing correction of wage distortions was forbidden by law & contract (CBA?); illegal IRR - Wage distortions me 1st voluntarily settled by the parties & eventually by compulsory arbitration; declares that any issue inv wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout 4. Inter-union & intra-union dispute BLR exercises original & exclusive authority to act on all Inter-union & intra-union disputes Whether dispute is bet or among unions (inter) or internal to 1 union; it does not involve ER thus dispute cannot justify a work stoppage 4th factor. Means & Methods A strike has to be pursued within the bounds of law; law puts limits to their exercise The limits are among the prohibited activities under Art 264 par (e) That no person engaged in picketing shall 1. commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation 2. obstruct free ingress to or egress fr ERs premises for lawful purposes 3. obstruct public thoroughfares The use of violence or threat in pursuing labor rights is punishable under RPC (Art289) Threats, Coercion or violence Even if purpose of a strike is valid, strike may still be held invalid where means employed are

Page 11

illegal The use of violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to rights of ppty or to a particular individuals make a strike illegal Acts of violence justify the dismissal of guilty strikers; EEs may be discharged for illegal acts or misconduct during a strike Note: Mere filing of charges against an EE for alleged illegal acts during a strike does not by itself justify his dismissal The charges must be proved at an investigation where EE must be given opportunity to defend himself; this is true even if the alleged ground constitutes a criminal offense Violence on both sides Where violence was committed on both sides during a strike, such violence cannot be a ground for declaring strike as illegal Responsibility for use of force: Individual or collective? GR – To avoid rendering illusory the recognition of the right to strike, responsibilities in such case should be individual & not collective E – a diff conclusion would be called for if existence of force while strike lasts was pervasive & widespread consistently & deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy PMOG v. Cia Maritima (1968) – acts of violence committed were not mere isolated incidents; reveals that it was staged in pursuance of a preconceived plan Responsibility for these illegal acts must be on an individual & not collective basis Although the strike was illegal because of the commission of illegal acts, only the union officers & strikers who engaged in violent, illegal & criminal acts against ER are deemed to have lost their EET status Union members who were merely instigated to participate in illegal strike should be treated differently In order to hold LO liable for unlawful acts of individual officers, agents or members, there must be proof of actual authorization or ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof. Thus where a union thru its leaders not only had knowledge of acts of violence committed by some of the strikers but either participated or ratified it; strike was illegal & dismissal of all active participants was justified (collective) Minor disorders - not intended by the act that minor disorders would deprive a striker of possibility of reinstatement Officials inability to leave premises, not illegal detention


- not done with criminal intent; outcome of picketing carried to excess Instances may occur where a criminal action may lie; those so engaged may subj themselves to serious criminal liability Blockade or obstruction Art264(e) forbids obstruction of points of ingress or egress as well as public thoroughfares Such obstructions are beyond valid exercise of the right to strike because 1. they deprive the owners of the company premises of its right to use them for lawful purposes & 2. passers-by the use of public passage 5th factor. Injunction 1. National Interest Cases; Automatic injunction & return-to-work order When there is a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike affecting natl interest; SoLE may either a. assume jurisdiction or b. certify the dispute to NLRC for compulsory arbitration SoLE may act upon his own initiative or upon petition by any of the parties Assumption or certification by SoLE has the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the A/Cert order If one has already taken place at time of assumption or certification: a. all striking or locked out EEs shall immediately return to work b. ER shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under same terms & conditions prevailing b4 strike or lockout Note: This is an example of automatic injunction; strictly limited to “national interest cases” Even in those cases, parties retain option to submit the dispute to VA-ion A prohibited activity under Art264 is the holding of a strike or lockout after assumption of jurisdiction by Pres or SoLE or after certification or submission of dispute to compulsory or VA-ion The issuance of an injunction in National interest cases in an exception to Art 254 which in general forbids labor injunctions Metrolab Industries v. Roldan(1996) – assumption or certification order under Art263(g) has the effect of regulating mgt prerogative of determining assignment or movement of EEs Thus, pending resolution of the dispute; lay-off of 94 RAF EEs was declared illegal as it was violative of the assumption order What are considered national interest cases? LC vests Pres or SoLE almost unlimited discretion to determine what industries may be considered

Page 12

indispensable to natl interest The assumption of jurisdiction by SoLE over labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to natl interest in the in nature of police power measure The SoLE acts to maintain industrial peace; his cert for compulsory arbitration is not intended to impede workers right to strike but to obtain speedy settlement of dispute PSBA v. Noriel (1988) – assumption of jurisdiction by SoLE over labor disputes involving academic institutions was upheld A dispute in a company supplying sulfate requirements of MWSS (as well as sulfuric acid of NAPOCOR) is a natl interest dispute Category of Essential Activities 1. generation or distribution of energy 2. those undertaken by banks, hospitals, export oriented industries National Interest by Statutory Declaration General Banking Law (revised in 200) explicitly classifies banking as an industry indispensable to natl interest Assumption of Jurisdiction prior notice not required The discretion to assume jurisdiction may be exercised by SoLE without necessity of prior notice or hearing given to any of the party disputants Rationale for his primary assumption of jurisdiction – rest on his own consideration of the exigency of the situation in relation to natl interest SoLE can immediately take action where a strike effectively paralyzed a vital industry without waiting the filing of NS Procedural details of assumption of jurisdiction DO 40-G-03 – details the exercise of assumption power of SoLE Power to assume jurisdiction; constitutional Union of Filipro EEs v. Nestle (1990) – UFE questions power of SoLE to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute tainted with natl interests or to certify the same for compulsory arbitration Held – the continued validity & operation of Art263 & 264 LC has been recognized by Phil Congress when it enacted into law RA 6715 (Herrera Law) Sec 27 amended par (g) & (i) of Art 263LC Art 263(g) & 263 LC has been enacted pursuant to [police power of State – inherent power of govt; does not need to be expressly conferred by the Consti] Certification to NLRC “Certified Labor disputes” – cases referred to


NLRC for compulsory arbitration under Art 277(g) LC dealing with natl interest cases A natl interest dispute may be certified to NLRC even b4 a strike is declared Art 263 does not require existence of a strike but only an industrial dispute When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to by SoLE, NLRC is not sitting as a judicial court but as an admin body charged with duty to implement the order of SoLE; its authority did not include power to amend SoLE’s order Clear intent of legislative body in enacting Art277 (263) (g)- not only to serve interest of parties but community & economy as a whole Effects of defiance Noncompliance with certification order of SoLE considered an illegal act committed in the course of strike/lockout; shall authorize NLRC to enforce the same under pain of immediate disciplinary action inc dismissal or loss of EET status or payment by locking out ER of backwages, damages &/or other affirmative relief even criminal prosecution against liable parties Grand Blvd Hotel v. GLOWRAIN (2003) Requisites of a valid Strike are: 1. NS filed with DOLE 30days b4 intended date (for bargaining deadlock) or 15days (in case of ULP) 2. Strike vote must be approved by majority of the total union membership in BU by secret ballot 3. Notice must be given to DOLE of the results of the voting atleast 7days b4 intended strike In this case, union went on strike simultaneously with filing of NS; illegal for failure to comply with required periods A strike undertaken despite issuance by SoLE of a certification order becomes a prohibited activity thus illegal [Art 264(a)] GF not a valid excuse to dispense procedural steps for lawful strike Assumption or Certification Order immediately effective even without a return-to-work order; strike becomes an illegal activity Union of Filipro v. Nestle (1990) – issue on legality of strike committed despite a return-towork order Held- Assumption and certification orders are executory in character & are strictly to be complied with by the parties even during pendency of any petition questioning their validity Striking workers cannot ignore RTW orders citing ULP of ER to justify their actions Note: An assumption and/or certification order of SoLE automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers; WON a corresponding order has been issued by SoLE

Page 13

Striking workers erred when they continued their strike alleging absence of return-of-work Once an assumption/cert order is issued, strikers are enjoined OR if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to work A strike that is undertaken despite issuance by SoLE of an assumption/cert order becomes a prohibited activity thus illegal (Art 264) Note: Notice to the parties is a prerequisite even if the order states that it is immediately executory PNOC Dockyard v. NLRC (1998) Rule – no order, decision or resolution, not even one that is immediately executor is binding & automatically executor unless and until proper parties are duly notified therefor - order not validly served on resps, since their supposed copy was; left only with a security guard at the gate of the premises of union Refusal to Receive Return-to-work order Refusal to receive assumption of jurisdiction order(AJO) amounts to defiance of order, which defiance makes the continuation of the strike an illegal act; subjecting the strikers to loss of EET status The strikers shall immediately resume work upon receipt or constructive receipt of order University of San Agustin v. CA (2006) - std operating procedure of office uf USec for LAbRel which considers AJOs as duly served upon posting of copies thereof on designated places; procedure was adopted to prevent thwarting of AJOs by simple expedient refusal of parties to receive it (as in this case)

staged in open & knowing defiance of the assumption & return-to-work orders Necessary consequence thereof is detailed by SC in Marcopper Mining Corp v. Brillantes – “ by staging a strike after assumption of jurisdiction or certification for arbitration, workers forfeited their right to be admitted to work; having abandoned their EET, could be validly replaced Defying RTWO Sarmiento v. Tuico (1988) Return-to-work order in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation; reason such return can be compelled Not even considered violative of right against involuntary servitude The worker can give up his work, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work The RTWO should benefit only those workers who comply with it & regardless of the outcome of compulsory arbitration proceedings; entitled to be paid for work actually performed Note: Where the return to work order is issued pending determination of the legality of strike; it is incorrect to say that it may be enforced only if strike is legal & may be disregarded if strike is illegal Purpose of RTWO is to maintain status quo while determination is being made Defiance of RTWO, an illegal act Not only union officers but also union members who defy RTWO are subj to dismissal; they are deemed to have participated in the illegal act

Well settled practice that the SoLE always gives 24hrs to striking workers within which to return to work But settled practice has no basis in law & jurisprudence; immediately return to work indicates an almost instantaneous of automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once AJO has been duly served

St Scholastica’s College v. Samahan (1992) RTWO is immediately effective & executor notwithstanding the filing of MR; it must be strictly complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its validity; until set aside, it must be immediately complied with Rationale is explained in UST v. NLRC citing PALEA v. PAL

Mere issuance of an assumption order by SoLE automatically carries with it a return-to-work order [SEE Art278 (264) (a)]

Any declaration of strike or lockout after SoLE has assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute is considered an illegal act Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a RTWO may consequently be declared to have lost his EET status Note: Fr the moment a worker defies a RTWO, he is deemed to have abandoned his job

Rationale for this prohibition is that once jurisdiction over labor dispute has been properly acquired by competent authority, such jurisdiction should not be interfered with by application of coercive process of a strike SC held in a no. of cases that defiance to the assumption & return-to-work orders of SoLE after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for loss of EET status of any striking union officer or member The strike of union is illegal for having been


Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong Workers were terminated fr work after defying RTWO for only 9days Held – Resp gravely abused his discretion when he ordered reinstatement of striking union members who refused to work after he issued 2 RTWO which in itself is knowingly participating in

Page 14

an illegal act A strike undertaken despite issuance by SoLE of assumption/cert order becomes a prohibited activity thus illegal pursuant to Art 263(a); union officers & members who participated in said illegal activity deemed to have lost their EET status But to justify dismissal, defiance of RTWO must be proved Note: An EE who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work For abandonment to constitute valid cause for termination of EET, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of EE to resume his EET; refusal must be clearly established Thus, the alleged or perceived defiance of RTWO does not mean automatic dismissal of defying EEs. Due process must be observed Given the chance to explain, EES may prove that no defiance at all Individual identification of strikers Each of the(se) officers must be individually identified & the extend or nature of his participation proven with certainty otherwise termination is invalid


Page 15

Art277 and up Azucena Notes on Labor Relations

Recommend Documents