G.R. No.

163942; November 11, 2008; NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL RESTAURANT AND
ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS (Former Eighth Division), THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC),
PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS INC., owner and operator of DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO and/or CHIYUKI FUJIMOTO, and
ESPERANZA V. ALVEZ, respondents. & G.R. No. 166295; November 11, 2008 NUWHRAIN-DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO
CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS,
INC., respondents.; VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
National Union of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries
(NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) of the Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (Union): certified
bargaining agent of the RF employees of Dusit Nikko Hotel.
Dusit Nikko Hotel: owned and operated by Philippine Hoteliers Inc.
Chiyuki Fujimoto and Esperanza Alvez:Hotels General Manager and Dir. Of Human
Resources
Oct. 24, 2000 Union submitted its CBA negotiation proposals to the Hotel. Parties
however failed to arrive at mutually accepted terms and conditions hence a deadlock
Dec. 20, 2001 Union filed a Notice of strike with the NCMB. Conciliation hearings were
conducted but were unsuccessful . A strike vote was conducted and the Union decided
to wage a strike.
Jan. 17, 2002 Union held a general assembly at the Hotel Basement (members
sported cropped/cleanly shaven heads). More male Union members came to work the
next day with the same hair style. The Hotel prevented them from entering (violation of
Hotels Grooming Standards)
o Union staged a picket outside the Hotel. The Hotel also experienced severe lack
of manpower which forced them to temporarily cease 3 restaurant operations
Jan. 20, 2002 Hotel suspended the Union members, preventively suspending them
and charging them with offenses. The Union filed a second Notice of Strike with NCMB
( ULP and violation of A248(a) on Illegal Lockout)
Jan 26, 2002 Hotel terminated 29 Union officers and 61 members and suspended 81
employees for 30 days, 48 for 15 days, 4 for 10 days and 3 for 5 days. The Union again
went on strike
Jan 31, 2002 3rd Notice of Strike (ULDP and union-busting). Secretary of labor assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute giving the Hotel an option to merely reinstate the
dismissed or suspended workers
Feb. 1, 2002 Hotel issued an Inter-Office Memo directing some of the employees to
return to work
NLRC Illegal strike which violated the No Strike, No Lockout provision of the CBA
(failed to comply with the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-day
strike ban,)
CA affirmed NLRC
ISSUE: WON the Union conducted an illegal strike
HELD: YES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The Court discussed the 6 categories of an illegal strike according to Ludwig Teller and how the
acts of the Union met the requisites:
[when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing
governmental functions; or
[when it] violates a specific requirement of law[, such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the
requisites of a valid strike]; or
[when it] is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair
labor practice against non-union employees; or
[when it] employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism
of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
[when it] is declared in violation of an existing injunction[, such as injunction, prohibition, or
order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or

6.

[when it] is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive

arbitration clause

Consequent liabilities of the Union officers and members for their participation in the illegal
strike
Art. 264(a), paragraph 3 of the Labor Code provides that "[a]ny union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may
be declared to have lost his employment status x x x."
Distinction between union officers and mere union members. Union officers may
be validly terminated from employment for their participation in an illegal strike, while
union members have to participate in and commit illegal acts for them to lose their
employment status. Thus, it is necessary for the company to adduce proof of the
participation of the striking employees in the commission of illegal acts during the
strikes.
29 Union officers may be dismissed pursuant to A. 264(a) par. 3 which imposes the
penalty of dismissal on any union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strike." But theres room for leniency with respect to Union members.
o Hotel proved that the strikers blocked the ingress to and egress from the Hotel.
But it failed to point out the participation of each of the Union members in the
commission of the illegal acts. Hence the 61 members should be reinstated.
Union members who participated in an illegal strike but were not identified to have
committed illegal acts are entitled to be reinstated to their former positions but without
backwages. Hence. The 61 members should be reinstated without backwages