You are on page 1of 1

Interphil Laboratories Employees Union, et.al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., and Sec.

of Labor
G.R. No. 142824. 19 December 2001. Justice Kapunan
TOPIC: Twelve-Hour Work Shift With Overtime

FACTS:

Interphil Lab Employees Union is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
Interphil Lab (company engaged in manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical products). They had a CBA
from 1990-1993. Nearing the expiry, the officers of the union asked Salazar, the VP for HR, many times
whether they were amenable to make a new CBA. Salazar declared that the company could not make a decision
at the moment.
The very next day after that declaration, workers having a 2 straight 12-hour shifts, decided that after working
8 hours per shift company conducted an overtime boycott.
Upon inquiry by Salazar for the boycott, he was told to ask the union officers. At a meeting, Gonzales, a union
director, told Salazar that the employees would only return to their normal work schedule if the company
would agree to their demands as to the effectivity and duration of the new CBA. Salazar declared that such
agreement could only be conducted through formal negotiations. Dissatisfied, workers proceeded with the
strike.
The employees also engaged in a work slowdown campaign which delayed the production of the company.
Then, the company submitted its CBA proposal, and the union its counter-proposal.
The company filed with the NLRC a petition to declare illegal petitioner unions overtime boycott and work
slowdown, which the company claimed to amount to illegal strike.
At mediation in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, the parties failed to arrive to an agreement.
The union filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike citing unfair labor practice they did eventually stage a
strike.
The Sec. of Labor assumed jurisdiction and the company was ordered to accept the striking workers, while
the union was directed to comply with the return-to-work orders.
Eventually, in the hearing in the LA, which was recommended to the Sec. of Labor, resulted in an Order
stating: (1) The OT Boycott and Work Slowdown were declared as illegal strike; (2) Declared the union officers
to have lost their employment; and (3) Found the company guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the
then existing CBA. MR denied, CA dismissed appeal of the union.
Union is contending that the CBA stated working hours to be 8 hours, and that the regular working hours is
7:30am-4:30pm. But there is a however clause which allows the company to change the prevailing work time
at its discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the working hours contained in the CBA should be the controlling evidence of the work hours.

HELD:
No, petition denied. In resolving the case, the Supreme Court held that it is evident that the working hours may
be changed, at the discretion of the company, should such change be necessary for its operations, and that the
employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the company.

In the case at bar, the LA found that the company had to adopt a continuous 24-hour work daily schedule by
reason of the nature of its business and the demands of the clients. It was established that the employees adhered
to the said work schedule since 1988. The employees are deemed to have waived the 8-hour schedule since they
followed, without any question or complaint, the 2-shift schedule while their CBA was still in force and even prior
thereto. The 2-shift schedule effectively changed the working hours stipulated in the CBA. As the employees
assented by practice to this arrangement, they cannot now be heard to claim that the OT boycott is justified
because they were not obliged to work beyond the 8 hours.

You might also like