Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIRs decision
1. Illegality of the strike was waived by Bisaya Land
when it accepted the striking radio operators
2. The defense is good as against reinstatement and
backpay of the operators but not as to the prosecution
of the demands of the union
Issues:
1. WON Union has cause of action against Bisaya Land
2. WON Union has power to bargain collectively
3. WON Union has power to bargain collectively for
Nadanza and Ouano
4. WON the strike/abandoning of posts was illegal
5. WON certification of the case to CIR by the Pres was
null and void
SC ruling
1. Yes. The return of the radio operators did not imply
the waiver of the original demands. They only desisted
from the strike, an act which is personal to the
strikers, and cannot be interpreted as waiver of the
unions original demands.
2. Yes. As expressly recognized under the Industrial
Peace Act
3. Yes. There is no law prohibiting employees from
affiliating with a craft union. In this case, PHILMAROA
represents Nadanza and Ouano as radio operators and
not as mere employees of Bisaya Land
4. No. Bisaya Land waived such illegality by voluntarily
agreeing to reinstate the operators
5. No. Even after a strike has been declared, the Pres
may certify the case for arbitration and conciliation
where public interest so demands
Facts:
In July 17, 1948, the Company and the Union entered
into an agreement that if a new machinery has not
been installed upon the reopening of the factory in all
its depts, the Company shall admit all the former
laborers of Apr 3, 1948; and if the new machinery has
SC Ruling
Yes. The strike was undoubtedly prompted by the
refusal of the company to discuss the 14-pt petition of
the Union. The plea of the laborers for better
conditions and for more working days cannot be said
to be trivial, unreasonable, or unjust. The demands
that gave rise to the strike may not properly be
granted under the circumstances, but the fact should
not make said demands and the consequent strike
illegal.
Facts:
Master
Iron
Works
Construction
Corporation
(Corporation) is engaged in steel fabrication and other
related business activities. In February 1987, the
Master Iron Labor Union (Union) and Corporation
entered into a CBA for a 3-yr period. Both parties
agreed to include a no-strike and no-lockout, stoppage
or shutdown of work clause and a provision on service
allowances of the employees. However, after the
signing of the CBA, the Corporation subcontracted
outside workers to do the usual jobs done by its
regular workers including those done outside of the
company plant. Then, the management scheduled the
regular workers to work on a rotation basis allegedly
to prevent financial losses. This prompted the Union to
request implementation of the grievance procedure
which had also been agreed upon in the CBA, but the
Corporation ignored the request.
Consequently, on April 8, 1987, the Union filed a
notice of strike DOLE and upon the latters
intervention, the parties reached an agreement
whereby the Corporation acceded to give back the
usual work to its regular employees who are members
of the Union.
Notwithstanding said agreement, the Corporation
continued the practice of hiring outside workers. When
the MILU president, Wilfredo Abulencia, insisted in
doing his regular work of cutting steel bars which was
being done by casual workers, a supervisor
reprimanded him, charged him with insubordination
and suspended him for 3 days. Upon the request of
the Union, DOLE called for conciliation conferences.
The Corporation, however, insisted that the hiring of
casual workers was a management prerogative
thereby ignoring subsequent scheduled conciliation
conferences.
Hence, on July 9, 1987, Union filed a notice of strike
on the following grounds: (a) violation of CBA; (b)
discrimination; (c) unreasonable suspension of union
officials; and (d) unreasonable refusal to entertain
grievance and 15 days later, on July 24, the Union
staged the strike, maintaining picket lines on the road
leading to the Corporation's plant entrance and
premises.
On July 28, 1987, CAPCOM soldiers came and arrested
the picketer who were then brought to Camp Karingal
and were later jailed in Caloocan City with charges for
illegal possession of firearms and deadly weapons.
However, those charges were dismissed for failure of
the arresting CAPCOM soldiers to appear at the
investigation. The dispersal of the picketlines by the
CAPCOM also resulted in the temporary lifting of the
strike.
On August 4, 1987, a petition to declare the strike
illegal was filed by the Corporation filed with the
NLRC-NCR arbitration branch. On September 7, 1987,
the Union re-staged the strike with the assistance of
the Alyansa ng Manggagawa sa Valenzuela (AMVA).
Consequently, the Corporation filed a petition for
injunction before the NLRC which issued an order
directing the workers to remove the barricades and
other obstructions which prevented ingress to and
egress from the company premises. The workers
obliged and on October 22, 1987, the Union offered to
return to work.
On October 30, 1987, Union filed a position paper with
NLRCs decision
On appeal to the NLRC, the 2nd Division affirmed the
declaration of illegality of the strike and the
termination of employment of certain employees and
the rest of the dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's
decision
Union filed a MR which was denied by NLRC for lack of
merit.
Issues:
1. WON the acts of the Corporation constituted ULP
2. WON the strike was illegal
SC Ruling
1.
** Corporations practice of hiring subcontractors to
dodge the paying of service allowance was a blatant
violation of CBA and a ULP on the part of employer.
The petitioners are asking for the implementation of
the benefit, as agreed in the CBA. Further, the
demands being covered by CBA are definitely within
the power of Corporation to grant. Thus, the strike
was not an economic one.
** Corporations refusal to heed Unions request to
undergo the grievance procedure clearly demonstrated
its lack of intent to abide by the terms of CBA.
** There is illegal break up of picketlines as the
bringing in of CAPCOM soldiers without any reported
outbreak of violence is considered as a prohibited
activity under Art 264 of LC.
2. The strike was staged only after the Corporation
had failed to abide by the agreement forged between
the parties. Thus, the strike was a legal one even
though it may have been called to offset what the
strikers believed in good faith to be ULP on the part of
the employer. Such presumption of legality prevails
even if the allegations of unfair labor practices are
subsequently found out to be untrue. The strike being
legal, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
terminating the employment of the individual
petitioners, who, by operation of law, are entitled to
reinstatement with three years backwages and without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges.
Corporation was ordered to desist from subcontracting
work usually performed by its regular workers.