BLT vs NLRC

Facts:
-

The BLTB Co. NAFLU (Union) filed a Notice of Strike against BLT (Company)
grounded on ULP and violation of the CBA.
The Company asked the SOLE to either to either assume jurisdiction over the
dispute or certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. It also moved to
dismiss the Notice of Strike. The SOLE certified the dispute to the NLRC after
efforts at amicable settlement failed.
A copy of the certification order was served upon the Union. However, the
secretary refused to receive it.
Thereafter, the union went on strike and maintained picket lines that blocked
the premises of the companys terminals.
The NLRC issued a return-to-work order which directed all striking employees
at the time the Notice of Strike was filed to return to work and that the
Company accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing
before the strike. It also mandated all striking employees to lift their picket
and to remove all obstructions and obstacles.
Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116
reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted.
Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who were allegedly
dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual complaints for
illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they were refused admission
when they reported back for work.
The NLRC decided the dispute where it, among others, 1)held the strike to be
illegal, 2)ordered the dismissal of the named union officers (and some
members), 3)ordered the reinstatement of the named union members 5)and
those who have not committed illegal acts.
The Company then filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the
reinstatement is not valid because the striking union members knew from the
start that the strike was illegal, and that the employees who defied the
return-to-work order should be deemed to have abandoned their
employment.

Issues:
W/N the union members should be reinstated? YES
Ratio:
- The SC accepted the factual conclusions of the NLRC. Among these are the
facts that there was inadequate service of the certification order on the union
and that there was no showing that the members were apprised of such
order. As to the alleged defiance of the return-to-work order, the SC held that
circumstances of time and place of employment and the residences of the
employees as well as the lack of individual notice to them are reasons
enough to justify their failure to beat the deadline as it cannot reasonably
expect the union members to be regular readers of the Manila Bulletin (where
the order was published). Moreover, some of these striking employees left
Metro Manila and did not have enough time to return within the period given
which was only 5 days.

The SC also held that these employees did not abandon their work. The
refusal to work must be clearly established. A worker who joins a strike
does so precisely to assert or improve the terms and conditions of his
employment. If his purpose is to abandon his work, he would not go to
the trouble of joining a strike.
As to the contention that only 36 EEs were dismissed where there were at
least 100 who committed illegal acts, the SC held that the mere filing of
charges against an employee for alleged illegal acts during a strike does not
by itself justify his dismissal. The charges must be proved at an investigation
duly called where the employee shall be given an opportunity to defend
himself, even if the alleged ground constitutes a criminal offense.
As to the contention that NLRC should not have issued a blanket directive for
the reinstatement of all EEs who did not commit illegal acts, the SC held that
this was selective as its application is limited only to those who did not
commit illegal acts. This resolution by the NLRC also does not prevent
petitioner from continuing with its investigation and come up with evidence
against these workers. But they have to be admitted back to their work first.
o